Maybe I was wrong. I thought I wanted a trawler.

[SteveK]

I find it amazing anyone seriously considers crossing an ocean with a power pleasure craft. While many can do it, were any built for that task?
Sailboats, and not all on the other hand were built to go offshore and last for days/weeks without powered propulsion.

 

[BandB]

I find it amazing anyone seriously considers crossing an ocean with a power pleasure craft. While many can do it, were any built for that task?
Sailboats, and not all on the other hand were built to go offshore and last for days/weeks without powered propulsion.

Yes, plenty of power boats built for crossing oceans. Nearly all those over 130' or so were and many in the 80-100' range plus some smaller. We fully intend to one day do crossings.

I find it amazing anyone considers doing in in a sailboat, averaging 4 knots, taking 3 weeks between land, dealing with ripped and torn rigging and sails. And most sailboats were not built to cross oceans.

So, power boater vs. sail boater. Actually I am fine with either crossing if that's what they want to do.

 

[SteveK]

I forgot I am in the company of others who consider a 130 footer a pleasure craft. Perhaps we need to define what is a pleasure craft for this discussion.
I always thought it was owner/operator with very few over 60 feet, without the need for crew, mostly averaging 40 foot as seen on this forum.

 

[Mac2]

I forgot I am in the company of others who consider a 130 footer a pleasure craft. Perhaps we need to define what is a pleasure craft for this discussion.
I always thought it was owner/operator with very few over 60 feet, without the need for crew, mostly averaging 40 foot as seen on this forum.

The book "Voyaging under power" by Robert Beebe covers a lot of your questions.

 

[guy with a boat]

Race cars or off road vehicles are built to fairly objective criteria. Speed, suspension travel, etc. If you want to do certain things, you need certain functional capabilities. In short, these are vehicles built to do stuff people want to do. Without exception, CE Rating is an insurance policy against undesired conditions - nobody wants to boat in a hurricane, but if it were to happen.....

I'll pick on Nordhavn because I've got a good 20k miles on them (maybe more). They are a really nicely made boat designed and constructed by people who know boats. That's unique in and of itself. Exceptionally well built boats. Water tight with lots of gadgets. Impressive kit.

But unless you're crossing a pretty large body of water where you are well beyond 3-day forecasts, and unless you're clueless about weather and use of pilot charts to plan a trip (err....seamanship skills), your chances of hitting sustained Force 8+ conditions (CE B if I recall) are essentially zero. And yet there are legions of onlookers who chant the chorus of Nordhavn/KK to anyone who wants asks about taking a decent coastal passage. Leaves the distinct impression that going from, say, Seattle to Florida via the Panama Canal would be a risky proposition in anything other than a N/KK. So there is an echo chamber hawking meteorite insurance.

Peter

I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.

Much the same as buying a 200mph sports car and driving it around at (mostly) street legal speeds. Or using a 6000lb SUV to go the the grocery store. Both are things that I just might be guilty of. Lots of machines are over qualified for the jobs they are doing, and ocean-capable boats are sometimes among them.

 

[Mac2]

I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.

Much the same as buying a 200mph sports car and driving it around at (mostly) street legal speeds. Or using a 6000lb SUV to go the the grocery store. Both are things that I just might be guilty of. Lots of machines are over qualified for the jobs they are doing, and ocean-capable boats are sometimes among them.

I started a post called "A new type of coastal cruiser?" . It covers the positives of a "over qualified" boat. One I'm loving now is all the fuel I have onboard (about 2,500 gallons) that I bought a couple years ago for around $2.49 a gallon. Seemed so expensive back then. HaHa.

 

[darkside]

I find it amazing anyone considers doing in in a sailboat, averaging 4 knots, taking 3 weeks between land, dealing with ripped and torn rigging and sails. And most sailboats were not built to cross oceans.

Oh my.
The record for round the world in a power boat? 61 days give or take
Fastest round the world on a sail boat? 41 days give or take.
And of course the sail boat went via the capes, no way in the world a power boat set up for speed could do that.

Sailing around the world is easier and cheaper than on a power boat. The year we went through Suez there were 115 sailboats circumnavigating and four power boats. There are some really excellent reasons for that ratio.

But we went over 20 years ago.
These guys are out there now in a modern sail boat.
220 mile days, nice relaxed attitude, depowered most of the time. 55 foot boat.

We are about to launch a powerboat. If it ever does ocean passages of more than 1000nm, it won't be on its own hulls.

 

[Hippocampus]

Have been involved with open water sailing all my adult life. At least in that activity size nor age isn’t the determinant of appropriateness of the vessel for blue water. Although initially to enter the America’s cup you had to sail from your home port to the venue. That was dropped. So for decades now it would be foolhardy to sail a AC boat in open ocean waters. Just like with power there’s boats built for passage making and those built for coastal use. It doesn’t correlate to CE rating nor size. I’d rather be on a 28’ Bristol Channel Cutter of 30-40 years old than most of the current offerings by the large French series producer. Similarly a 20y.o. N43 over a 50’ glitzy go fast made last year. Boats are built to a price point and for a particular market.
Crew and judgment matters regardless of the platform . I was in multiple Salty Dawgs one went badly . At captains meeting a day was given for departure. Although the weather router is most excellent (I still use him years later) he got it wrong in my judgment. So we left two days early to the dismay of the rally organizers. We saw a rare line squall. Never went to storm sails or even third reef. The fleet got beat up. Multiple SARS calls, boats abandoned, boats injured, multiple boats returning to the US instead of completing the voyage, crew injuries. The same thing happened to a ARC Caribbean 1500 using a different weather routing service. Believe with that one there was loss of life. So agree with Peter. Severe weather is rare. But it happens. Both above mentioned events were recent enough that current weather forecasting tech was used. Computer models are models that generate probabilities not certainties. It’s not if but when.

 

[Hippocampus]

Believe there’s a ongoing paradigm change. Much like the transition from sail to power that Slocum lamented. In both now maybe 1-3% ever voyage. So in either activity is an extremely small subset in the market place. But for that subset there’s several things that will determine vessel selection.
Ocean passage making is a expensive activity. Even for those who weld up a steel or Al multichine boat themselves. Few are willing to put up with all the compromises cruising on a shoe string involves. This means participants need more time to amass the resources required to enter into this activity. Yes there’s many families doing this activity but the majority are retired or have downgraded their income earning activities working remotely or with occasional breaks for consulting.
Weather events are becoming less predictable in timing, more severe and more common. The season for cyclonic events has extended..
Well before Russian transgressions or Covid both expense and cultural forces increased the desire to decrease hydrocarbon use.
There’s two ways to handle weather. Active and passive. Even on a sailboat almost all are active. Those that will end up being passive require major active involvement first. If you have ever done the evolution to deploy a drogue ( even a Jordan series drogue) or sea anchor or hoved to for storm conditions you know it’s requires strength and endurance. Hoving to has been dropped from storm tactics as being ineffectual. But for power until you reach survival conditions tactics do not involve any deck work. So TT or SP can voyage into their 80s safely. Sea anchors and drogues being saved for the very rare occurrence of massive mechanical failure or survival conditions.
Given the above assumptions expect more transitions from sail to power or initial decisions to “voyage under power”. But suspect the sector of heavy displacement boats to decrease and the sector of fast displacement boats to increase. Power may be mixed between diesel and alternative energy. Electric being used from house needs and local coastal cruising. Diesel for passage making. This effects maybe 1-3% of the total market although untold words are written about it.
Sill in both coastal and ocean the evolution will be toward less displacement.

 

[Osprey69]

Have been involved with open water sailing all my adult life. At least in that activity size nor age isn’t the determinant of appropriateness of the vessel for blue water. Although initially to enter the America’s cup you had to sail from your home port to the venue. That was dropped. So for decades now it would be foolhardy to sail a AC boat in open ocean waters. Just like with power there’s boats built for passage making and those built for coastal use. It doesn’t correlate to CE rating nor size. I’d rather be on a 28’ Bristol Channel Cutter of 30-40 years old than most of the current offerings by the large French series producer. Similarly a 20y.o. N43 over a 50’ glitzy go fast made last year. Boats are built to a price point and for a particular market.
Crew and judgment matters regardless of the platform . I was in multiple Salty Dawgs one went badly . At captains meeting a day was given for departure. Although the weather router is most excellent (I still use him years later) he got it wrong in my judgment. So we left two days early to the dismay of the rally organizers. We saw a rare line squall. Never went to storm sails or even third reef. The fleet got beat up. Multiple SARS calls, boats abandoned, boats injured, multiple boats returning to the US instead of completing the voyage, crew injuries. The same thing happened to a ARC Caribbean 1500 using a different weather routing service. Believe with that one there was loss of life. So agree with Peter. Severe weather is rare. But it happens. Both above mentioned events were recent enough that current weather forecasting tech was used. Computer models are models that generate probabilities not certainties. It’s not if but when.

We were on that same rally. Left a few days late and was fine. The fatality you refer to was a women who fell overboard in the Gulf Stream from an Island Packet. They had left from Newport.

We were stuck in Hampton Roads for a week. Even the museum got boring...

Did many a crossing in November from East Coast to BMD as well. It was rare not to see 30+++ knots at some point that time of year. Fantastic sailing though.

 

[Hippocampus]

O do you remember the year? Remember Bill and Linda pleading with me to wait. Miss them terribly. Zoe is gone as well.

 

[Osprey69]

o do you remember the year? Remember bill and linda pleading with me to wait. Miss them terribly. Zoe is gone as well.

2012...

 

[Nick14]

What is a "trawler"? And who gets to decide what a "trawler" is?

The Oxford dictionary defines 'trawler' as "a fishing boat used for trawling."

For pleasure boat owners, it means whatever people want it to mean. It can be limited solely to full displacement boats like Krogen and Nordhavn, or include semi-displacement boats like the tugs, or planing hulls like Grand Banks.

In my mind (and maybe only in my mind), 'trawler' has meant a boat that is 1) 'traditionally' styled, whether pilothouse, sedan, or other, 2) is more robustly built than average, and 3) has above-average seakeeping abilities.

For me, another 'requirement' to think of a boat as a 'trawler' is the presence of a keel. A keel generally means slower but better seakeeping abilities. FD boats more often meet those criteria. Though, a number of SD boats such as American Tug, Nordic, Helmsman, etc. have keels, meet the other criteria, and are faster than FD.

The 'Downeast' crowd has similar debates. What is a 'downseast' boat? Are they only the traditional, full-keel designs such as Wilbur, Duffy, Ellis, etc.? Or does it include Sabre and similar 'downeast inspired' boats? What about something like a Legacy, with a short skeg-keel?

Most people would consider an older Grand Banks, with its keel, especially in single-engine configurations, a 'trawler.' What about twin engine Grand Banks, capable of speeds in the teens? How about the latest pod-drive Grand Banks that still look like a 'trawler' above the waterline but no longer have keels (not that it matters with pods)?

These are just the random thoughts that bounce around in what's left of m mind. YMMW. But really a 'trawler' can be whatever people want it to be.

 

[rslifkin]

What is a "trawler"? And who gets to decide what a "trawler" is?

The Oxford dictionary defines 'trawler' as "a fishing boat used for trawling."

For pleasure boat owners, it means whatever people want it to mean. It can be limited solely to full displacement boats like Krogen and Nordhavn, or include semi-displacement boats like the tugs, or planing hulls like Grand Banks.

In my mind (and maybe only in my mind), 'trawler' has meant a boat that is 1) 'traditionally' styled, whether pilothouse, sedan, or other, 2) is more robustly built than average, and 3) has above-average seakeeping abilities.

For me, another 'requirement' to think of a boat as a 'trawler' is the presence of a keel. A keel generally means slower but better seakeeping abilities. FD boats more often meet those criteria. Though, a number of SD boats such as American Tug, Nordic, Helmsman, etc. have keels, meet the other criteria, and are faster than FD.

The 'Downeast' crowd has similar debates. What is a 'downseast' boat? Are they only the traditional, full-keel designs such as Wilbur, Duffy, Ellis, etc.? Or does it include Sabre and similar 'downeast inspired' boats? What about something like a Legacy, with a short skeg-keel?

Most people would consider an older Grand Banks, with its keel, especially in single-engine configurations, a 'trawler.' What about twin engine Grand Banks, capable of speeds in the teens? How about the latest pod-drive Grand Banks that still look like a 'trawler' above the waterline but no longer have keels (not that it matters with pods)?

These are just the random thoughts that bounce around in what's left of m mind. YMMW. But really a 'trawler' can be whatever people want it to be.

And just to screw with things, there are also planing hulls with keels (mine being one of them). Not as deep as the keel on something like a Grand Banks, but it's still significant.

Generally, I think of a trawler as something heavier duty than your average weekend powerboat. And also typically something that's primarily meant to go slow, even if it can go faster (therefore a boat like mine that was meant to run around on plane all day isn't a trawler even if it's used like one). And then there's the heavy vs light duty trawler distinction, mostly in the form of how far offshore it's really intended to go.

 

[Nick14]

And just to screw with things, there are also planing hulls with keels (mine being one of them). Not as deep as the keel on something like a Grand Banks, but it's still significant.

Generally, I think of a trawler as something heavier duty than your average weekend powerboat. And also typically something that's primarily meant to go slow, even if it can go faster (therefore a boat like mine that was meant to run around on plane all day isn't a trawler even if it's used like one). And then there's the heavy vs light duty trawler distinction, mostly in the form of how far offshore it's really intended to go.

My aging and deteriorating brain doesn't have enough remaining functional neurons to also hold the category of planing hulls with keels. Maybe we'll just have to give your boat an honorary semi-displacement designation to avoid short-circuiting what little is left of what was once my mind.

To make things even more complicated, there's the spectrum of 'semi-displacement' hulls as well, ranging from almost FD with just a little hydrodynamic lift at one end, to almost a planing hull with nearly as much hydrodynamic lift as a regular keel-less planing hull at the other end.

I like the simplicity of your definition - something 'heavier duty than the average weekend powerboat.'

'Heavier duty' usually means 'heavier' as well, which by definition also often means 'slower.' Though even with that comes a spectrum. What is 'slow'? To a go-fast boat 30 knots is 'slow', whereas to a FD design 10 knots is 'fast' (to me 'slower' is under 20 (ish) knots).

 

[rslifkin]

My aging and deteriorating brain doesn't have enough remaining functional neurons to also hold the category of planing hulls with keels. Maybe we'll just have to give your boat an honorary semi-displacement designation to avoid short-circuiting what little is left of what was once my mind.

To make things even more complicated, there's the spectrum of 'semi-displacement' hulls as well, ranging from almost FD with just a little hydrodynamic lift at one end, to almost a planing hull with nearly as much hydrodynamic lift as a regular keel-less planing hull at the other end.

I like the simplicity of your definition - something 'heavier duty than the average weekend powerboat.'

'Heavier duty' usually means 'heavier' as well, which by definition also often means 'slower.' Though even with that comes a spectrum. What is 'slow'? To a go-fast boat 30 knots is 'slow', whereas to a FD design 10 knots is 'fast' (to me 'slower' is under 20 (ish) knots).

The line between SD and planing is often pretty blurry. If you look at them, plenty of "SD" hulls are just planing hulls with big keels (and therefore lots of drag) and not enough power to really get all the way on plane. As far as I'm concerned, if it accelerates through a range where it's plowing, bow starts to climb towards the sky, then you hit a speed where the bow drops, wake cleans up and the boat is on plane, it's a planing hull regardless of what it looks like underwater.

Many early planing hulls had keels, but they've typically gotten smaller or disappeared over time as boats have gotten faster. If you want to go faster, the drag from the keel is an issue and at higher speeds, it can be a handling liability. If you've got a deep V, there's less reason to have a keel in the first place, so they rarely have one.

 

[Art]

Errrr... Time moves on and a words' meanings evolve/change - That happens even in the relatively steadfast world of "Marine Jargon"!

So... Therefore, if I may interject.

Pre 1960, or thereabouts: - The word "Trawler" was specifically affixed to working, commercial fishing boats.

In or about 1960: Advertisers/marketers of pleasure boats took the "romanticism" prone name of Trawler and overlapped it onto a few pleasure craft that were not at all meant for commercial fishing work.

Since that considerably successful [1960 ish] beginning of the "Trawler" pleasure boat ad campaign... the use of the word Trawler for boats lost its sole, previously steadfast meaning of being only affixed to working commercial fishing boats.

Therefore, I suggest: Simple, dual category nomenclature for "Trawler"

1. Working Trawler
2. Pleasure Trawler

Would end the squabbles of: "What is the definition of a Trawler."

 

[mvweebles]

Like the GB42, my Willard 36 (1961-1970) was marketed as a "Cruiser." The word "Trawler" never appeared in marketing information for either (though Willard eventually callled the Blaine Sealey adapted Pilothouse version a "Trawler").

Peter

 

[Nick14]

The line between SD and planing is often pretty blurry. If you look at them, plenty of "SD" hulls are just planing hulls with big keels (and therefore lots of drag) and not enough power to really get all the way on plane. As far as I'm concerned, if it accelerates through a range where it's plowing, bow starts to climb towards the sky, then you hit a speed where the bow drops, wake cleans up and the boat is on plane, it's a planing hull regardless of what it looks like underwater.

Many early planing hulls had keels, but they've typically gotten smaller or disappeared over time as boats have gotten faster. If you want to go faster, the drag from the keel is an issue and at higher speeds, it can be a handling liability. If you've got a deep V, there's less reason to have a keel in the first place, so they rarely have one.

Good point. Many SD hulls do indeed look like a plaining hull with a keel stuck on. Naval architecture has equations to calculate the amount of hydrodynamic lift (per pound of weight, etc.) and therefore efficiency of a SD design, though for most people it seems to boil down do, how fast will it go, and how big of an engine will it take to do it?

Even the definition of 'planing' can be blurry. Stick 5 x 600 hp mega-outboard motors on a Kady-Krogen 42 and it will probably climb up on to a quasi-mushy plane of sorts, but it won't be very efficient (or pretty) doing it. Almost any boat that exceeds hull speed (straightforward to calculate) is achieving a degree of dynamic lift to do it, though with varying efficiency.

Even that is blurry. Boats of the 1920's/1930's were more efficient than most modern designs. The engines back then were less efficient, had less power, so the designers had to be more efficient with the limited power they had to work with. The result were long, lean, narrow hulls that went relatively fast with modest power, and cleaved through the water fairly well. Those styles went away after the 1950's when higher power engines made it possible to have beamy boats that delivered wide cabins and the boat-show-wow-factor of cavernous interior spaces.

The Andreyale is a rare example of a pre-war narrow design currently built. To my eyes it's beautiful, but doesn't offer much cabin space for its length -

https://www.tofinou.com/en/motor-yachts/andreyale-15-m

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1e/d8/c3/1ed8c352964e04428a2be9ead8709240--classic-yachts-motor-boats.jpg

Shannon had a similar idea with their 'SRD', Shannon Reverse Deadrise, hull design. I've been underway on one, and it also doesn't have the typical planing hull climb-over-the-bow-wave ride, but more smoothly transitions to speeds in the low 20's knots. Like the Andreyale, it's a narrow hull with limited interior space for its length (which I suspect is why it never sold well) -

https://shannonyachts.com/srd-technology.html

Occasionally you see something that to my non-expert, non-naval architect trained eyes seems like a nice compromise. The 'keel form' hull of the Camano 31 and 41 (the 31 is now being built by Helmsman) reportedly doesn't have much of a bow wave and doesn't so much 'come on plane' as it seems to smoothly transition from 7 to 15(ish) knots -

The old engineering maxim, 'Good-Fast-Cheap - pick any two' seems to apply to boats as well (Fast-Seaworthy-Roomy - pick any two). The typical 'downeast' style of SD hull, with a deep forefoot to cut through nasty seas, transitioning to flat sections aft to provide some lift, with a long full keel (and either soft or hard chine) seems to be a SD design that's stood the test of time, been battle-tested by scores of fishermen who go out in all kinds of nasty conditions when we'd stay in port, and provides more speed than FD but better seakeeping abilities than most planing designs.

Like most things in life, it's a compromise, with different solutions for different people.

 

[Hippocampus]

Excellent post Nick. Was involved in several small limited boat building runs. One was to bring Peter Ibold designed pilot house motor sailor to the US market. The economics had us calculating cost by weight (displacement). More weight more resin, glass and infill. Heavier displacement more cost. The other was building ultralights for Bluewater cruising not racing (never came to market). Here extracting weight meant cost. Using exotics, high tech layups, prepreg, carbon, baking, high tech plastics for fittings etc. every ounce removed was big bucks. For the majority of the market both in sail and power this isn’t relevant. Few folks are looking for a heavy displacement BWB nor an ultralight cruiser. But I think things are changing. What’s old is new. Triremes had wave piercing bows, were ultralights, long and thin. Cold molded wood is used to build mega yachts. Pogo is building ultralight Bluewater cruisers using WOOD. Al is having a resurgence in recreational power.

 

[rslifkin]

Many of those narrow, fast, old hulls were probably more of a real SD hull, as they didn't have the same drag hump, then drop onto plane of a typical planing hull. They just accelerated past hull speed and kept going. Generally you can tell if a hull is really planing both by looking at the wake as well as the behavior when you accelerate (as far as whether it just kinda gets higher in the water, or if it really climbs over the bow wave at some point).

 

[BandB]

The line between SD and planing is often pretty blurry. If you look at them, plenty of "SD" hulls are just planing hulls with big keels (and therefore lots of drag) and not enough power to really get all the way on plane. As far as I'm concerned, if it accelerates through a range where it's plowing, bow starts to climb towards the sky, then you hit a speed where the bow drops, wake cleans up and the boat is on plane, it's a planing hull regardless of what it looks like underwater.

Many early planing hulls had keels, but they've typically gotten smaller or disappeared over time as boats have gotten faster. If you want to go faster, the drag from the keel is an issue and at higher speeds, it can be a handling liability. If you've got a deep V, there's less reason to have a keel in the first place, so they rarely have one.

Shouldn't we really call them semi-planing instead of semi-displacement?

 

[Art]

Shouldn't we really call them semi-planing instead of semi-displacement?

Groups of displacement hull boats came millennium before groups of planing hull boats. There ISTM... "displacement" should get the first star pinned on its chest in the realm of ordinarily used nomenclature! Although... semi planing works well too!!

 

[Nick14]

Excellent post Nick. Was involved in several small limited boat building runs. One was to bring Peter Ibold designed pilot house motor sailor to the US market. The economics had us calculating cost by weight (displacement). More weight more resin, glass and infill. Heavier displacement more cost. The other was building ultralights for Bluewater cruising not racing (never came to market). Here extracting weight meant cost. Using exotics, high tech layups, prepreg, carbon, baking, high tech plastics for fittings etc. every ounce removed was big bucks. For the majority of the market both in sail and power this isn’t relevant. Few folks are looking for a heavy displacement BWB nor an ultralight cruiser. But I think things are changing. What’s old is new. Triremes had wave piercing bows, were ultralights, long and thin. Cold molded wood is used to build mega yachts. Pogo is building ultralight Bluewater cruisers using WOOD. Al is having a resurgence in recreational power.

Thanks @Hippocampus.

It is ironic how we're coming full circle with some things, the 'old is new.' Cold molded wood, from the 1950's, is turning out to be a rather nice way to build a light, fast, strong boat (but not necessarily cheap!).

It's the unavoidable 'Good-Fast-Cheap' choice. Pick any two.

 

[Nick14]

Many of those narrow, fast, old hulls were probably more of a real SD hull, as they didn't have the same drag hump, then drop onto plane of a typical planing hull. They just accelerated past hull speed and kept going. Generally you can tell if a hull is really planing both by looking at the wake as well as the behavior when you accelerate (as far as whether it just kinda gets higher in the water, or if it really climbs over the bow wave at some point).

As @Hippocampus observed, this might be another 'old' trend that could make a comeback. Especially if fuel prices stay around current levels for the longer term (which they might).

I personally love the old narrow, fast hulls. I'd happily made the trade-off of less interior space for the performance and economy advantages (as well as beautiful styling). So few of those designs have been made recently. Other than the Andreyale (which is expensive) and Shannon (which I don't know if they're still making the SRD 38), the only other one I'm aware if are some Devlin designs (also not cheap).

People love cavernous interiors. I've heard countless dealers, builders, and brokers say that, how it's what sells at boat shows. Going on a 34 foot boat that feels like a 40+ ft boat inside. Most people prefer to trade-off and eliminate things like full walk-around side decks in exchange for more cabin space. The narrow fast hull designs can't offer that. I liked the Shannon SRD 38, looked at them a few times, but have to admit the cabin felt more like one on a 30 ft sailboat than a 38 foot powerboat.

The ultimate force in life for many people is money. If diesel stays around (or above) $6/gal for a while, people might rethink priorities. Some might get out of boating completely if it costs $5-$10 per mile just in fuel to go places. Full displacement designs and the inherent economy of cruising below hull speed might become more popular.

And just maybe, some people who want to travel at double-digit speeds will decide they're willing to take less cabin space in exchange for better fuel economy.

As @Hippocampus said, what's old might become new again.

 

[ksanders]

I think Peter is dead on in his posts, and his argument regarding vessel capability Vs actual operating conditions is 100% correct.

This concept is extremely important to people who have a dream of cruising as a lifestyle choice.

If you listen to advertising, and to internet lore you will be lead to believe that in order to leave port in the open ocean you NEED a (insert your favorite brand here) of boat. These boats have fantastic capabilities and come with a price point that is frankly unobtainable to many or most "dreamers".

That leaves the dreamers thinking their only choice is a sail boat since these are readily obtainable at a lower cost.

The problem is that this advice, while good intentioned is simply not true.

Coastal Cruising requires nothing special in a boat. I would argue that every boat here on TF would be capable of cruising for example the Pacific Coast from Alaska through Mexico.

 

[rslifkin]

Coastal Cruising requires nothing special in a boat. I would argue that every boat here on TF would be capable of cruising for example the Pacific Coast from Alaska through Mexico.

I would generally agree. Some of the boats here would take more weather delays than others and some would be harder than others to plan and make it all work in fuel-wise, but at least most of the boats here are otherwise capable of the run.

 

[guy with a boat]

The problem is that this advice, while good intentioned is simply not true.

Coastal Cruising requires nothing special in a boat. I would argue that every boat here on TF would be capable of cruising for example the Pacific Coast from Alaska through Mexico.

I would generally agree. Some of the boats here would take more weather delays than others and some would be harder than others to plan and make it all work in fuel-wise, but at least most of the boats here are otherwise capable of the run.

I also agree on the capability issue, with the added qualifiers.

A prospective boat buyer has to do some research beyond consuming advertising. Its really not that tough the learn how much boat you need/want for a certain type of cruising. A minimal amount of investigation and experience should tell someone that you don’t have to have an ocean-crosser for most coastal cruising.

Part of the equation is some think they want to cross oceans, and they buy enough boat to do that along with coastal cruising. Some do and some don’t ever do crossings, but its hard to know exactly where you will end up cruising when you are just starting the process.

Most of us shop the full spectrum of boats at the beginning and then settle in to where our budgets and wants intersect. Plenty of buyers have figured it out, since the majority of boats running up and down the coast aren’t expensive expedition yachts.

The broader availability of capable boats can only be a good thing. I don’t need (or want) an $80K 4x4 Suburban to drive around town, but I don’t fault the manufacturer for building it or the advertisers for trying to sell me one.

 

[ksanders]

I also agree on the capability issue, with the added qualifiers.

A prospective boat buyer has to do some research beyond consuming advertising. Its really not that tough the learn how much boat you need/want for a certain type of cruising. A minimal amount of investigation and experience should tell someone that you don’t have to have an ocean-crosser for most coastal cruising.

Part of the equation is some think they want to cross oceans, and they buy enough boat to do that along with coastal cruising. Some do and some don’t ever do crossings, but its hard to know exactly where you will end up cruising when you are just starting the process.

Most of us shop the full spectrum of boats at the beginning and then settle in to where our budgets and wants intersect. Plenty of buyers have figured it out, since the majority of boats running up and down the coast aren’t expensive expedition yachts.

The broader availability of capable boats can only be a good thing. I don’t need (or want) an $80K 4x4 Suburban to drive around town, but I don’t fault the manufacturer for building it or the advertisers for trying to sell me one.

I agree completely!

I met a guy in Anacortes, a wonderful guy that was working into his mid 70's to pay for his extremely capable expedition boat.

The question one needs to ask of themselves is regarding the age old time Vs money equation.

Do you work later in life to buy a more capable boat, and risk never cruising?
Or do you free up time earlier by choosing not to work later in life, but settle for a lesser capability boat?

Some are fortunate enough not to have to make that choice, but for the rest of us, it's a tough decision.

 

[Nick14]

All very good and salient comments. A big factor (at least with me) is psychological. How much margin for error do you want to have in your boat?

We never intentionally have gone out in bad weather or nasty sea conditions. Planning for weather is one thing, and any prudent mariner should do it. For me the question is more, what do you unintentionally get caught in?

Most of the time one can reasonably plan around the weather and sea conditions. Most of the time. Here in New England, sea conditions and weather can change very quickly and often unpredictably.

Out my window there are many days when I see the water go from glass smooth to 4-6 ft whitecaps in less than an hour. Some days Buzzard's Bay is calm and placid, other days not so much. The problem is, it can happen on the same day. Or the same boat trip.

Then there's the Block Island Sound Washing Machine. Some days you could row to Block Island in a $99 inflatable from Ocean State Job Lot. Other times the ferry ride is tortuous enough to make the strongest stomachs heave everything they've eaten for the past 5 years.

Truth be told, in 52 years of boating (gawd I'm old!)(ugly too), the number of times I've been caught off guard by a surprise change in weather and sea conditions, I could probably count on one hand (maybe two). But the psychological value of that can't be easily calculated: how much is one willing to pay for the additional capability if that happens to you?

For me, the highest priority is seakeeping ability. It's not the only priority, but the highest one, in this and most previous boat searches. I want to know that I would give up long before the boat will. Memories of those few times when something nasty caught us, though few in number, are outsized in my (and especially my wife's) minds. I don't need, want, or can afford a true 'bluewater' boat capable of crossing oceans. But for me it's worth the trade-off of spending more and/or getting less in other areas in exchange for a little more reassurance than if (or when...) that happens again, I won't have to seriously be concerned whether or not we'll make it home.