Wood Boats...SCARY???

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello all,

Wanted to respond to a few of your comments.

I have looked at a couple boats. I agree, it is definitely time to view boats, but I will only travel to view a boat that I am seriously considering.

The Radiant Star is not my boat. It is way to much like a sailboat. It is not homey enough, it's too dark, not enough windows, and not enough living space. Plus, it's wood. The only reason I was considering wood was because that Malahide Vanessa looked comfortable and spacious, but unless the boat was very similar to a trawler style, as the Vanessa is, I wouldn't consider it.

The Sopressa is a beautiful boat. The interior is obviously amazing and it has 5 cabins, which is perfect, 4 heads, large fuel capacity, wide body all good stuff. I really thought that it was the "one" for a while, but, I just can't seem to get past the design. Now, I am very much aware that I'm a super newbie, but it just doesn't look like a true Passagemaker to me. It looks like a LRC. It doesn't have sea doors and I can't seem to get past the design. It looks like a coastal boat. I know that some coastal boats can be passagemakers, but was it designed for this purpose. I would prefer to have a boat that was intended for passagemaking, not one than can do it.
I don't need a cockpit. As long as it has a swim platform, that's all my kids need.
You guys really think this a transatlantic capable vessel:confused: If I really believed it was I would seriously consider it.
 
I have a question for you guys?

When the range is stated on a listing, is that the range at the cruise speed of the boat. Like, Sopressa, for example, says the range is 3000nm and it also says the cruise speed is 10knots. So, if the boat slowed to, let's say, 7 knots, then the range would probably jump to 4000nm, am I correct here? If this is the case, why don't they say range of 4000nm or whatever the best case scenario is, or is it because they have to calaculate range based on cruise speed only?
 
Your dichotomy of choice perplexes me. All the attributes you didn't appreciate on Radiant Star is what makes her a good safe sea boat. But yet you like the Cheoy Lee,which appears to be a candidate for Naiad stabilisers (and doesn't have). You seem to want a 5 bedroom house with a den and living room, that is seaworthy, and under 500k. You may have to consider making some compromises in ability, size, safety, or comfort to achieve your dream voyage.

I don't mean this in a mean spirited way. Just being frank.
 
Last edited:
GalaxyGirl said:
When the range is stated on a listing, is that the range at the cruise speed of the boat. Like, Sopressa, for example, says the range is 3000nm and it also says the cruise speed is 10knots. So, if the boat slowed to, let's say, 7 knots, then the range would probably jump to 4000nm, am I correct here? If this is the case, why don't they say range of 4000nm or whatever the best case scenario is, or is it because they have to calaculate range based on cruise speed only?
Click to expand...
No disrespect to brokers, they have an important job to do for the owner, but it is probably expressed the way thought most likely to attract a buyer. People might prefer the thought of 3000nm @ 10 knots to 4000nm @ 7knots.
GG, clearly you have parameters to include and exclude boats in your search,mostly the latter. What boats did you inspect, why did you go no further? We kiss a lot of frogs seeking a prince(ss); but the more boats seen, the more ideas refine, so some good comes of it.
It`s possible the boat you want does not exist within price range (or at all), though it`s early for that. But if so, there are options including: give up, raise price range, change boat requirements. The basic economic problem presents, "wants exceed means".
 
GG and Meme - I say this with due respect:

From what has occurred on this thread, relating to what you, your mom, and all other posters have said or done, you two girls have a long, long way to go. It is best that you both get to visiting and touring a whole bunch of boats as well as renting some with captain and crew aboard.

Words and instructions can only go so far... first hand, personal aboard-boat review actions and on-the-water experience are your best next steps... before purchase.

Good Luck Girls! :speed boat:
 
GG, just for the record, I know for a fact the Cheoy Lee 66 has and does cruise oceans. I have read of the exploits of one from here in Oz, Sydney, I think, reported in our of our boat mags, which cruised the Pacific quite extensively, not that long ago. It caught my attention because of that.
As to range, this is usually a function of the max distance with 10 percent reserve at or just below hull speed. (Approx 1.3 x sq root LWL in feet), Ie, the fastest economical speed. Yes, slower would give more range, but in a 66' boat, you would not want to do 7 kn, when 10 would be almost as economical and get you there much faster.
 
Peter,
Some years ago the owner of one of these ( a movie maker) made a video called "Before the Operations" I think.
A bunch of them were dooing a Pacific cruise but before they left a few of them had to have various ops of one sort or another.
Is this the guy you were thinking of.
Cheers
Benn
 
Could well be Benn, could well be..
All I know is I thought at the time, if my "ship ever came in", and money was no object, a Cheoy Lee 66 equipped for ocean travel was on my wish list. Much cheaper than a Nordy, and more room for same length, and still perfectly suitable for 'sensible' ocean cruising. Ain't gonna happen, but you know what I mean....
 
GalaxyGirl said:
Hello all,

...The Radiant Star is not my boat. It is way to much like a sailboat. It is not homey enough, it's too dark, not enough windows, and not enough living space. Plus, it's wood. The only reason I was considering wood was because that Malahide Vanessa looked comfortable and spacious, but unless the boat was very similar to a trawler style, as the Vanessa is, I wouldn't consider it....
Click to expand...

Most of us are suffering from light deprivation and need more light. | Winter Blues Coach

Most sailboats have portlights and portholes to let at least some light into the boat. Radiant Star does not even have that.

Another problem is the lack of diesel tanks for a long voyage. The engine that it has is an old design and is good for 175 horsepower. It has a brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of .329 pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour where modern diesels get a little better than .300 BSFC, but not all modern engines get this good an economey such as the Deere 6008T, a 175 horsepower engine with a BSFC of .390
 
Last edited:
GalaxyGirl said:
When the range is stated on a listing, is that the range at the cruise speed of the boat. Like, Sopressa, for example, says the range is 3000nm and it also says the cruise speed is 10knots. So, if the boat slowed to, let's say, 7 knots, then the range would probably jump to 4000nm, am I correct here? If this is the case, why don't they say range of 4000nm or whatever the best case scenario is, or is it because they have to calaculate range based on cruise speed only?
Click to expand...
Here is some real world data. It's true the boat you want is not going to be used for fishing, but if you ignore the parts of the article that deals with that and concentrate on the part of getting from port to fishing ground and back, there is a lot of useful information. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i2461e/i2461e.pdf
 
I would never trust myself to any long distance voyage where I did not have at least 20% spare fuel or the ability to refuel - the 10% figure is too trusting of weather and other unknowns. I also would not trust any broker's range estimate without concurring back-up calculations. Where are you planning on going?? Most ocean voyages do not require 4000 miles rang without the chance to refuel.
 
GalaxyGirl said:
Now, I am very much aware that I'm a super newbie, but it just doesn't look like a true Passagemaker to me.
Click to expand...

There is an active thread on TF "6000 miles to Rio in Two Months" Lots of interesting stuff in those pages, dominated by a non trawler, not marketed as blue water boat just heading out. My 200K estimate to get the Cheoy Lee sea ready is not a typo and may well be low. But it will put the boat in your budget along with proper sea doors, right sized anchor and rode, storm window covers and proper stabilizers. While you're at it get your FCC license and a SSB.
 
There sure has been a lot of speculation going on regarding G.G. and what she thinks she wants to do. Marinas are full of unused boats that were someones romantic notion of what they thought "yachting" was all about.
The poster has so many " wants" that are in direct conflict of each other, most of these can be attributed to not knowing anything about what they are trying to do.

But the biggest issue is this, the poster wants a big boat to go
" transatlantic" and yet has not spent a day ever doing this kind of boating. From my experience most people that are uninitiated to the sea absolutely hate the ocean and get so disheartened by the experience that they never try passagemaking again. Yet this poster seems to expect the entire clan to embrace this new lifestyle.

Quit speculating, looking at boats and spend the money on a charter that is moving a boat between Europe and the Us. My guess is that a large percentage of the family will never want to do this again.

A very small percentage of the population actually likes being out of sight on the open sea for long ... on a good day.

HOLLYWOOD
 
Peter B said:
GG, just for the record, I know for a fact the Cheoy Lee 66 has and does cruise oceans. I have read of the exploits of one from here in Oz, Sydney, I think, reported in our of our boat mags, which cruised the Pacific quite extensively, not that long ago. It caught my attention because of that.
As to range, this is usually a function of the max distance with 10 percent reserve at or just below hull speed. (Approx 1.3 x sq root LWL in feet), Ie, the fastest economical speed. Yes, slower would give more range, but in a 66' boat, you would not want to do 7 kn, when 10 would be almost as economical and get you there much faster.
Click to expand...

Peter,
Thanks for the info. Any chance that you might have a reference for that information. I would love to read about it?

Yeah, I get what your saying about the 10knots, I was just curious how they determine what info to present, but that makes sense.
 
hollywood8118 said:
There sure has been a lot of speculation going on regarding G.G. and what she thinks she wants to do. Marinas are full of unused boats that were someones romantic notion of what they thought "yachting" was all about.
The poster has so many " wants" that are in direct conflict of each other, most of these can be attributed to not knowing anything about what they are trying to do.

But the biggest issue is this, the poster wants a big boat to go
" transatlantic" and yet has not spent a day ever doing this kind of boating. From my experience most people that are uninitiated to the sea absolutely hate the ocean and get so disheartened by the experience that they never try passagemaking again. Yet this poster seems to expect the entire clan to embrace this new lifestyle.

Quit speculating, looking at boats and spend the money on a charter that is moving a boat between Europe and the Us. My guess is that a large percentage of the family will never want to do this again.

A very small percentage of the population actually likes being out of sight on the open sea for long ... on a good day.

HOLLYWOOD
Click to expand...

I respect and understand your point, but you don't know my kids. They are a hearty bunch and love adventure and really, really LOVE travel.
The point of wanting the ability to travel transatlantic is so that at some point in the future, I will have the option to cruise over to Europe and explore for a few months if that is what I choose. Don't know at this point how many of my kids will accompany a trip like this, some may or may not be off off to college, but if the don't enjoy the 2 week trip across, they will have to bring extra movies, books and games to keep themselves busy on the ride. They will love the travel and exploration when they arrive. I hate long plane rides, but sometimes you have to suck it up. I may not be able to please everyone in my family. But, that is not the goal. Most will love it.
 
westwinds said:
Here is some real world data. It's true the boat you want is not going to be used for fishing, but if you ignore the parts of the article that deals with that and concentrate on the part of getting from port to fishing ground and back, there is a lot of useful information. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i2461e/i2461e.pdf
Click to expand...

Nice read. Lots of interesting info. Some was very technical, but good info. Thanks :thumb:
 
sunchaser said:
There is an active thread on TF "6000 miles to Rio in Two Months" Lots of interesting stuff in those pages, dominated by a non trawler, not marketed as blue water boat just heading out. My 200K estimate to get the Cheoy Lee sea ready is not a typo and may well be low. But it will put the boat in your budget along with proper sea doors, right sized anchor and rode, storm window covers and proper stabilizers. While you're at it get your FCC license and a SSB.
Click to expand...

I'll have to check that out.
 
BruceK said:
No disrespect to brokers, they have an important job to do for the owner, but it is probably expressed the way thought most likely to attract a buyer. People might prefer the thought of 3000nm @ 10 knots to 4000nm @ 7knots.
GG, clearly you have parameters to include and exclude boats in your search,mostly the latter. What boats did you inspect, why did you go no further? We kiss a lot of frogs seeking a prince(ss); but the more boats seen, the more ideas refine, so some good comes of it.
It`s possible the boat you want does not exist within price range (or at all), though it`s early for that. But if so, there are options including: give up, raise price range, change boat requirements. The basic economic problem presents, "wants exceed means".
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case. I actually have a couple boats on my radar. One of them is pending a sale, but I have seen pendings fall apart, so I am keeping my eye on it. It went under agreement very quickly after a price drop, so I barely had time to investigate, and it was gone. I was dissapointed. But, I'm sure there will be a boat that will cover most of my bases.
 
westwinds said:
Here is some real world data. It's true the boat you want is not going to be used for fishing, but if you ignore the parts of the article that deals with that and concentrate on the part of getting from port to fishing ground and back, there is a lot of useful information. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i2461e/i2461e.pdf
Click to expand...

Voyaging Under Power by Robert Beebe and Denis Umstot also has some information on efficiency, but does not go into as much detail. Meatsea, I am sure you know, is getting the book. There is also informaton on stability that I believe you will want to know about.

I think you should consider getting Dave Gerr's The Nature of Boats. He does have some simple formulas that are mostly determined by "OK, lets try this, measure it, and see what happens" so you just have to take his word for it that since the formulas are based on practice, you just have to accept it and not try to figure out why it is so.
 
Chrisjs said:
I would never trust myself to any long distance voyage where I did not have at least 20% spare fuel or the ability to refuel - the 10% figure is too trusting of weather and other unknowns.
Click to expand...

Firmly agreed!
 
Peter B said:
As to range, this is usually a function of the max distance with 10 percent reserve at or just below hull speed. (Approx 1.3 x sq root LWL in feet), Ie, the fastest economical speed. Yes, slower would give more range, but in a 66' boat, you would not want to do 7 kn, when 10 would be almost as economical and get you there much faster.
Click to expand...

10% reserve is (IMO) too low for crossing oceans. Especially for a big boat like the CL66. She is high sided with shallow (relatively) draft and small propellers. This type of boat will be seriously slowed by wind, wave, and current. A gale on the nose and pretty soon you are in a holding pattern, burning fuel and going nowhere. Minimum reserve should be at least 20%, 30 would be better.

I don't think anyone is really crossing oceans at 10 knots today(correct me if someone has a source) The older Norhavn 62's did crossings at 6.5 knots and I think Dashew (Windhorse) is crossing at 9 or so, and coastal cruising at 11.

The difference in fuel consumption between 7 and 10 knots for the CL66 will be huge. For a 59' LWL 90,000 pound boat 7 knots is a speed/length ratio of 0.91 and requires (in calm water) about 40HP. On the other hand 10 knots is S/L 1.3 and requires 160HP, or 4 times the fuel. This is why boats cross oceans slowly.....
 
Tad Roberts said:
10% reserve is (IMO) too low for crossing oceans. Especially for a big boat like the CL66. She is high sided with shallow (relatively) draft and small propellers. This type of boat will be seriously slowed by wind, wave, and current. A gale on the nose and pretty soon you are in a holding pattern, burning fuel and going nowhere. Minimum reserve should be at least 20%, 30 would be better.

I don't think anyone is really crossing oceans at 10 knots today(correct me if someone has a source) The older Norhavn 62's did crossings at 6.5 knots and I think Dashew (Windhorse) is crossing at 9 or so, and coastal cruising at 11.

The difference in fuel consumption between 7 and 10 knots for the CL66 will be huge. For a 59' LWL 90,000 pound boat 7 knots is a speed/length ratio of 0.91 and requires (in calm water) about 40HP. On the other hand 10 knots is S/L 1.3 and requires 160HP, or 4 times the fuel. This is why boats cross oceans slowly.....
Click to expand...

Tad,
Thank you for sharing that info. I would love to hear your opinion as to whether you think the the Choey Lee Sopressa is built as a transatlantic boat or if it is a suitable vessel to cross with?
 
GalaxyGirl said:
I would love to hear your opinion as to whether you think the the Choey Lee Sopressa is built as a transatlantic boat or if it is a suitable vessel to cross with?
Click to expand...

First I'll say that I don't think there should be any doubt that Sopressa, properly equipped and crewed, could not safely cross the Atlantic.

I also doubt, looking at the pictures of the saloon and galley, that she was finished out with ocean cruising intentions.

And no, for me she would not be a suitable ocean going vessel. That huge open saloon, no handholds in sight anywhere, slick looking varnished sole, glass topped coffee table.....none of that spells open water to me. Way too far to fall (18' beam) for my old bones. And the galley with big open countertops with not a bit of searail in sight(and no handholds), it's useless at sea.

I really like the instant access from pilothouse to flying bridge. But those wide open spaces frighten me. Of course you can fit temporary rails and handholds on the overhead, but I'd rather have something solid to hang onto.
 
Crossing an ocean like the Atlantic is such a major feat of endurance that most people do not do it, even if they may have boats that might be able to be suitably equipped. Personally, I know several people who have done it in sailboats, but nobody who has done it in a power vessel. No matter what route you take, you are looking at 15-20 days of non-stop (24 hour) travel. Somebody, qualified, must be on watch the whole time. Assuming 4 hour rotations (it is very boring mostly) that means you really need an absolute minimum of 3 experienced hands, more is definitely better. Day upon day of rotating watches at sea takes a toll - everybody gets really tired. That is without any mechanical problems or bad weather. Maintenance on the vessel is an ongoing process while underway. Oil changes at a minimum will need to be done 2x during the crossing. Assuming twin engines this means shutting down one at a time. Fuel filters will almost certainly need changing multiple times during the crossing. Who knows what else?? At the end of the voyage what have you really accomplished?? You have put a lot of hours on your vessel and crew to make a journey that you could make in 6 hours by plane at a fraction of the cost. Along the way, you have probably been scared sh1tless several times. Hey you might have even died!!
The voyage itself is primarily one of being out of sight of land or any other living thing, so not much to see along the way. Compared to cruising closer to land or taking 500 mile offshore runs to get somewhere like Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Caribbean, or Canada it is really boring except when it is really scary. Are you really convinced you want to build your whole concept of boating around the need to have a large ocean going vessel for a trip you may make once (hopefully in both directions)??
 
Chrisjs said:
Crossing an ocean like the Atlantic is such a major feat of endurance that most people do not do it, even if they may have boats that might be able to be suitably equipped. Personally, I know several people who have done it in sailboats, but nobody who has done it in a power vessel. No matter what route you take, you are looking at 15-20 days of non-stop (24 hour) travel. Somebody, qualified, must be on watch the whole time. Assuming 4 hour rotations (it is very boring mostly) that means you really need an absolute minimum of 3 experienced hands, more is definitely better. Day upon day of rotating watches at sea takes a toll - everybody gets really tired. That is without any mechanical problems or bad weather. Maintenance on the vessel is an ongoing process while underway. Oil changes at a minimum will need to be done 2x during the crossing. Assuming twin engines this means shutting down one at a time. Fuel filters will almost certainly need changing multiple times during the crossing. Who knows what else?? At the end of the voyage what have you really accomplished?? You have put a lot of hours on your vessel and crew to make a journey that you could make in 6 hours by plane at a fraction of the cost. Along the way, you have probably been scared sh1tless several times. Hey you might have even died!!
The voyage itself is primarily one of being out of sight of land or any other living thing, so not much to see along the way. Compared to cruising closer to land or taking 500 mile offshore runs to get somewhere like Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Caribbean, or Canada it is really boring except when it is really scary. Are you really convinced you want to build your whole concept of boating around the need to have a large ocean going vessel for a trip you may make once (hopefully in both directions)??
Click to expand...

Days, if not weeks and months, of boredom and routine interspersed with moments of sheer terror. That's been my (relatively limited) experience in open ocean work in yachts, large commercial and naval vessels. I'm perfectly content in my latter days to stay close to the coast.
 
Tad Roberts said:
First I'll say that I don't think there should be any doubt that Sopressa, properly equipped and crewed, could not safely cross the Atlantic.

I also doubt, looking at the pictures of the saloon and galley, that she was finished out with ocean cruising intentions.

And no, for me she would not be a suitable ocean going vessel. That huge open saloon, no handholds in sight anywhere, slick looking varnished sole, glass topped coffee table.....none of that spells open water to me. Way too far to fall (18' beam) for my old bones. And the galley with big open countertops with not a bit of searail in sight(and no handholds), it's useless at sea.

I really like the instant access from pilothouse to flying bridge. But those wide open spaces frighten me. Of course you can fit temporary rails and handholds on the overhead, but I'd rather have something solid to hang onto.
Click to expand...

Those were the first and instantaneous things I noticed too. Then the jacuzzi on the flying bridge, where the tender used to go, and the little bar up there, tells you the most recent owners of this boat had "dock queen swinger's pad" in mind, not ocean or even coastal cruising. Also telling is the scarce info on any systems updates or maintenance an one picture of the ER. Looks really great for the new purpose. Someone is actually considering this boat for a different purpose?
 
Chrisjs said:
...Compared to cruising closer to land or taking 500 mile offshore runs to get somewhere like Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Caribbean, or Canada...
Click to expand...
Just for the record, I would like to point out that (most of) Canada is quite firmly attached to the US. Just go up to around the 49th parallel and look north and you'll see a good chunk of it. No boat even required.
 
"Sucking it up" for a 6, 8, 10, or 12 hour plane ride where you can sleep, relax, have others cook & bring your food, and not need to take care of other people is nowhere even remotely comparable to what you're considering.

And, your assuming that most of the others will enjoy it without having done anything like it before is ... Hmm... nevermind
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
Oh My God Not A Wooden Boat
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
garbler
G
B
orcas attacks... which protection for rudder and fins on trawlers?
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
vertigopilot
vertigopilot
D
Velair VSD New Installation
Replies
3
Views
621
Vatu
V
Pete Meisinger
There is humor everywhere, even selling a boat
Replies
2
Views
851
psneeld
psneeld
CaptainKen
Watching My Wake
Replies
4
Views
569
Mambo42
Mambo42

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom