Pilothouse / Motorsailer better for sea sickness?

[Caer Urfa]

Unless you buy an aft cabin version most motor sailors (Colvic Watson/Fisher etc) have duel steering ie from the helm position (internally) or from the tiller external, this gives you the best of both worlds shelter when you need it and fresh air when sailing only

 

[Bobc]

Many years ago my dad had a Colvic Atlanta 32. My memories of that were that the indoor steering position was ideal for night passages and when it was cold/wet/rough etc.

I once felt quite ill inside (about the only time I've felt rough on a boat), and had to go into the cockpit for some fresh air. I think what made me feel bad was the engine noise and maybe some engine fumes.

If I were going to have a boat based in Scotland, I would want something you can sail from inside.

 

[Bobc]

I’ve never sailed a Sirius but there are a couple at Haslar marina and they do look quite a clever design and the story of their design is interesting .

Very nice, very rare secondhand, very expensive if you can find one.

 

[ylop]

Alba sailing at Dunstaffnage have a 43 ft pilot house Beneteau for charter. I have chartered off them several times and have always had a good experience. No idea of its availability.

That would potentially be really useful. I'm not spotting it on their list. They have a Beneteau 46 (the "Raphy G") but its not got a Pilot House. I'm guessing perhaps you were referring to "Eloise" a Sun Odyssey 43 - it has what I think is know as a "deck saloon" - ie. the cabin top is a bit higher and it has bigger windows. I can't imagine choosing to sail it from down there just because it was a wet day (no steering, probably not a great view of the sales) and not sure it would be a great place to be in lumpy conditions - probably better than the standard cabin version but from the pics it still looks like you have to look up - to see outside. Possibly a good compromise for nipping down below to make a brew, better in a rolly anchorage, or for "spare" crew to hide on a wet but not too bouncy day.

 

[Laminar Flow]

I like the Sirius boats, but there is a significant difference between a proper, full-height wheelhouse and a decksalon for the purposes of navigation, never mind the fact that the price for a new Sirius 31 is easily equivalent to that of a single family home.

Speed is an important factor in reducing roll, all else being equal.
The image of the traditional, short-rigged tubby motorsailer rolling her guts out in a cross sea is not entirely unjustified and is the result of several design factors.

Firstly, is a hull form mimicking early, seaworthy MFV, double ended and often with relatively slack bilges that offers little in the way of roll dampening. The Watson hull is a bit better in that respect, with somewhat more beam and a firmer bilge. Significantly, these types, no longer having to carry tons of fish or support super heavy engines, now tend to have relatively high ballast ratios that may induce a sharp roll.

The traditionally short rigs, now made in aluminum are much lighter than their timber ancestors and have relatively low inertia. A good example of comparison are the Banjer motorsailers that initially started out with a very snug 28 sqm of sail and the final models had much taller masts with 100 sqm. It was found that the taller masts with their increased inertia significantly reduced the roll propensity of a rather round bilge hull.

Sail area has a significant effect on reducing roll. Hardly any of the traditional motorsailer types are exactly blessed with an abundance in this respect and the factory issued storm rigs simply do not offer sufficient area to resist rolling effectively in the type of weather most sensible folk choose to head out in. A manufacturer claiming it a benefit not having to reef your 25 footer, until you are battling a F8, is utter nonsense and defies common sense use of such a craft.

The shallower draft of these types, in spite of a long keel, may not offer sufficient roll resistance to combat the above factors. Speed, even by motoring, will improve the roll dampening effectiveness of the hull's appendages.

The solution is generally, to increase roll inertia, with a taller rig, possibly by shifting weights or increasing top hamper, to increase sail area and speed and to carry as much sail as possible for as long as possible.

 

[crewman]

That would potentially be really useful. I'm not spotting it on their list. They have a Beneteau 46 (the "Raphy G") but its not got a Pilot House. I'm guessing perhaps you were referring to "Eloise" a Sun Odyssey 43 - it has what I think is know as a "deck saloon" - ie. the cabin top is a bit higher and it has bigger windows. I can't imagine choosing to sail it from down there just because it was a wet day (no steering, probably not a great view of the sales) and not sure it would be a great place to be in lumpy conditions - probably better than the standard cabin version but from the pics it still looks like you have to look up - to see outside. Possibly a good compromise for nipping down below to make a brew, better in a rolly anchorage, or for "spare" crew to hide on a wet but not too bouncy day.

My error I meant Eloise. Misread the description. It is deck saloon not pilot house.

 

[geem]

I like the Sirius boats, but there is a significant difference between a proper, full-height wheelhouse and a decksalon for the purposes of navigation, never mind the fact that the price for a new Sirius 31 is easily equivalent to that of a single family home.

Speed is an important factor in reducing roll, all else being equal.
The image of the traditional, short-rigged tubby motorsailer rolling her guts out in a cross sea is not entirely unjustified and is the result of several design factors.

Firstly, is a hull form mimicking early, seaworthy MFV, double ended and often with relatively slack bilges that offers little in the way of roll dampening. The Watson hull is a bit better in that respect, with somewhat more beam and a firmer bilge. Significantly, these types, no longer having to carry tons of fish or support super heavy engines, now tend to have relatively high ballast ratios that may induce a sharp roll.

The traditionally short rigs, now made in aluminum are much lighter than their timber ancestors and have relatively low inertia. A good example of comparison are the Banjer motorsailers that initially started out with a very snug 28 sqm of sail and the final models had much taller masts with 100 sqm. It was found that the taller masts with their increased inertia significantly reduced the roll propensity of a rather round bilge hull.

Sail area has a significant effect on reducing roll. Hardly any of the traditional motorsailer types are exactly blessed with an abundance in this respect and the factory issued storm rigs simply do not offer sufficient area to resist rolling effectively in the type of weather most sensible folk choose to head out in. A manufacturer claiming it a benefit not having to reef your 25 footer, until you are battling a F8, is utter nonsense and defies common sense use of such a craft.

The shallower draft of these types, in spite of a long keel, may not offer sufficient roll resistance to combat the above factors. Speed, even by motoring, will improve the roll dampening effectiveness of the hull's appendages.

The solution is generally, to increase roll inertia, with a taller rig, possibly by shifting weights or increasing top hamper, to increase sail area and speed and to carry as much sail as possible for as long as possible.

We have friends that owned a Banjer 38. I dont know if it was a short or tall rig version but that boat rolled like a pig. On a sail in company from Pwllheli to Dublin the four crew onboard the Banjer were all seasick. The wind was F6 gusting a little more. They had a truly miserable trip. In those days we we in a Prout Snowgoose 37 enjoying the surfing down waves. None of the four crew on the Snowgoose were sick. We actually had a great trip

 

[ryanroberts]

I had quite a lumpy delivery trip in my Fjord 33, must have been 2-3 meters round the Casquets in 6-7. My crew was incapacitated with sea sickness after getting rather wet steering from the cockpit, I was at the inside helm nice and dry which helped. Psychologically too as it is a lot quieter, you can just pop your head out to mess with a winch sheltered from spray by the back of the pilot house then hop back in again.

Personally had not been in anywhere near those sorts of conditions as a dazed kipper. Standing in the middle of the cockpit was more comfortable than at the helm, and the autopilot did a decent job once in the channel proper. Took a few hours before I could go below for very long without feeling a little queasy but watching the horizon from the pilothouse windows was ok. Rolling wasn't too bad at all with a beamy sea on jib only. Was probably a lot more than I should have bitten off given my experience level (and only later did my experienced crew tell me they usually get seasick on their first day lol) but gave me a lot of confidence in the boat and my stomach.

 

[ylop]

...Sail area has a significant effect on reducing roll. Hardly any of the traditional motorsailer types are exactly blessed with an abundance in this respect...

...The solution is generally, to increase roll inertia, with a taller rig, possibly by shifting weights or increasing top hamper, to increase sail area and speed and to carry as much sail as possible for as long as possible...

Laminar Flow - thanks for the detailed input. Certainly hadn't considered that carrying as much sail as possible was a potential remedy. If anything we are probably inclined to reef early expecting that seasickness may be coming and reduce crew capacity, will be an interesting trade off. When you suggest "shifting weight" are you talking long term structural mods (like fitting tanks low) or on an "as it happens" basis? I followed most of your technical descriptions and the physics seemed to make sense but can you explain what top hamper is?

So it looks like we have many factors to consider:

Length - Hull Shape - Beam - Visibility of Horizon - Speed - Weight - Sail Plan - Comfort (warm dry) - Cockpit position (relative to COG) - Ventilation (engine smells) - Height of helm position (low=better) - Appropriate Ballast Ratio

I think I have a feel now for what might be good when making way - and obviously at least sometimes we will have other options then like changing course or destination for comfort how about on a mooring or at anchor?

 

[RAI]

There are few motor sailers that can be sailed from within the wheel house. Mostly their winches are outside.
Steering I want on autopilot most of the time. So deck saloon wheels are a waste of space.
My choice landed on the Coronet Elvstrom 38. You will need to go into the Baltic to find most of them. Failing that, the LM's are brilliantly designed.
Best of luck with the sea sickness. I get it too. I haven't found a reliable cure. Just puke and bear it.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Laminar Flow - thanks for the detailed input. Certainly hadn't considered that carrying as much sail as possible was a potential remedy. If anything we are probably inclined to reef early expecting that seasickness may be coming and reduce crew capacity, will be an interesting trade off. When you suggest "shifting weight" are you talking long term structural mods (like fitting tanks low) or on an "as it happens" basis? I followed most of your technical descriptions and the physics seemed to make sense but can you explain what top hamper is?

So it looks like we have many factors to consider:

Length - Hull Shape - Beam - Visibility of Horizon - Speed - Weight - Sail Plan - Comfort (warm dry) - Cockpit position (relative to COG) - Ventilation (engine smells) - Height of helm position (low=better) - Appropriate Ballast Ratio

I think I have a feel now for what might be good when making way - and obviously at least sometimes we will have other options then like changing course or destination for comfort how about on a mooring or at anchor?

Looking at the couples of a pendulum, Ballast to point of rotation and the weight of the rig, both require a certain amount of energy to accelerate. The heavier their relative weights the more energy is required to accelerate and, conversely the more energy they require to be stopped or to change their direction. This equates to a slower motion for the boat. C.A. Marchaj's book "Seaworthiness, the Forgotten Factor", offers a long and detailed chapter on the subject.

Fishing vessels often add weights to the outboard extremes of the bilges to slow down rolling by increasing inertia. We can do the same on a yacht with all the junk and tools we tend to collect. In the same way, we can change the roll behaviour by adding or reducing weight vertically (top hamper). Moving tools from lower down to the wheelhouse lockers or adding a wind generator, solar panels or a radar can have a similar effect.

A taller, heavier rig will slow down the roll, generally speaking, and obviously you can have too much of a good thing if the boat is tender. That is rarely the case with most trad. motorsailers. In our case, we have an 11' beam on a DWL of just 28' and with a Ballast/Displacement ratio of 37% and relatively hard bilges. Many modern, light yachts have ratios below 30%.

The cockpit floor, deck in proper terms, and the wheelhouse deck on our boat are on the same level. The cockpit is very deep and I would venture that in relative terms it is no higher than on a conventional yacht. From the WH to the salon there are just two steps down.

On sail area: The important thing here is SA/Diplm. ratio. To note: anything under 8 is at best a MOBO with steadying sail. The general definition of a MS is a SA/Displ. ratio under 13. The standard Watson 32 has a ratio of 9.6 with a 150% genoa. The Fisher 34 is 11.62, by comparison, and our modified rig has a ratio of 17.8. We can carry this up to a F6 when on the wind.
I mention this to show how much roll dampening potential, not to mention speed and sailing ability, is given up on, in spite of the fact that these boats could easily carry more sail.

Rolling at anchor. We only ever had one instance where it was uncomfortable when on a mooring off Sark. We were not alone in this as all the other boats were having a merry good time at it as well. We raised our mizzen and this effectively put an end to it. There was also a large traditional Breton lugger at anchor; it barely moved in the swell. You do have to wonder at the purported benefits of progress sometimes.

In regards to Geem's report: I take note that a catamaran does not roll as much going downwind in a force 6, gusting 7, and in appropriately rough conditions than a very round-bilge mono with a, potentially, very modest sail plan.

In contrast: We left Ijmuiden early in the morning for Dieppe. The wind was to the NNW at 15 to 20kts. The wind waves conspired with the westerly swell to create a really fun triangular, pyramid style wave pattern that gave us an unpleasantly unpredictable and bumpy ride. In spite of it we managed to maintain some 7+ knots under full sail.
After a few hours of this kind of abuse, my wife, this being our first time out in open water in a while, started to feel sick.
I packed her up on the long bench in the wheelhouse and gave her the magic pill. This always puts her to sleep.
We bashed on, I stood watch throughout the day and the following night. I played with the sails while Arnold, our slow-witted electronic serf, steered.
At night the wind eased; someone forgot to pass the memo on to the agency in charge of the sea state. We passed several busy shipping lanes and Belgium in the dark, the speed was down to 5-5.5kts. Early dawn found us off Calais, where the TSS squeezes you into shore and we dodged the busy ferry lanes. At Cap Gris Nez we get to buck the tide and are down to 1.8kts over ground. My good wife awakes, near perfectly chipper and only slightly befuddled to breakfeast in the WH.
After Cap Gris Nez we turn left and now with the wind just to starboard of astern we set the spinnaker. During the morning the wind begins to fill in and build and we find ourselves racing along under spinnaker and mizzen, doing consistently between 7 and 7.5 kts with great, white combers rushing up astern, the boat running like on rails and "Arnold" meeting the steep waves arriving on the quarter with less than a quarter turn of the wheel. It is blowing between 27 and 30++ kts, the weather is bright and sunny. I have given the spinnaker a long leash, so hardly any oscillation of the sail is transmitted to the boat and consequently no rhythmic roll can establish itself. After a long night I'm feeling a little tired so I leave my wife, now fully recovered and alert, to her tea and writing her journal in the wheelhouse and retire to one of the salon bunks below, the regulation British type of 18" to a man, and sleep blissfully and soundly and without the aid of a lee cloth for the next two hours.
By the time we reach Dieppe, the seas are very steep and breaking, the entrance is a mess of confused water. Wife with the sensitive stomach is fine. We have sailed 210 miles in 35 hours at an average speed of 6kts, other than to dial in a new course, we did not touch the helm once until taking in sail off Dieppe.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I am reporting back as promised. I've just done a weekend on a Fisher, Poole to Cowes on Saturday, estimated F6-7, wind with tide and even going North Channel at Hurst, very rough. Coming back Sunday estimated F6 (our windex doesn't work, if any of the other barmy buggers doing that trip Sunday can tell me what they were registering I would love to know) wind against tide after Hurst and very, very rough.

Yes the Fisher is very rolly but the big benefit was that we did the whole thing in shorts and t-shirts. I didn't put a jacket on for the return, although had to resort to a fleece when coming back to the mooring in Poole. I am now wondering why I like Bavaria's so much and am considering going over to the dark side.

I can't comment on the sailing properties as we couldn't hoist anything except the mizzen for a bit of stability so motored everywhere.

Regarding Sea-sickness, I expected to be very poorly. I took a 300mg ranitidine (generic Zantac) and one stugeron in the morning, with porridge and toast breakfast before leaving (Sunday was a very nice full English courtesy of the Duke of York Cowes) and I was not even slightly queasy all day.

Oh and a money saving tip. When staying at the Folly its £16 return on the water taxi and pretty basic facilities, plus no chance of breakfast as they don't open till 11:00. By getting up a bit early Sunday we left and picked up a short stay mooring at Cowes Yacht Haven for £12, with great facilities and breakfast a short walk away. Result

 

[Rappey]

The cause of motion sickness is a conflict of balance versus what you see.
Go inside a boat and lose sight of the horizon and you will be worse.
A pilot house could be an advantage.

 

[geem]

The cause of motion sickness is a conflict of balance versus what you see.
Go inside a boat and lose sight of the horizon and you will be worse.
A pilot house could be an advantage.

You are correct but it doesn’t seem to be as simple as that in practise. Our previous boat was a 37ft Prout Snowgoose catamaran. We sailed that boat thousands of miles including an Atlantic circuit. In full cruising trim it weighed 5.5t. My wife was often seasick. Below you had a good view out but it didnt help. She took seasickness tablets on a regular basis. The motion of the cat was jerky. Although cats sail flat, they lay to the shape of the sea so if its rough they get thrown around. If they are light they get thrown around. Our next boat couldn’t be more different. A 44ft cruising monohull. She is deep draft with a lead keel that weighs 6 tonnes. The all up weight is circa 18t. She has tall heavy masts. The motion of the boat is long and slow ( not the boat speed, she is fast). My wife is a lot less prone to seasickness now. In fact, we cant remember when she was last sick. If we leave on a long bumpy passage she will take pills for the first day or two as a precaution. I do the cooking. After a couple of days at sea she is fine and needs no more pills. We are convinced that the motion of the boat plays a major role in seasickness.

 

[Rappey]

We are convinced that the motion of the boat plays a major role in seasickness

I'm sure there are many other factors. Heard of people that are fine on small boats but ill on large ships and vica versa

 

[Laminar Flow]

You are correct but it doesn’t seem to be as simple as that in practise. Our previous boat was a 37ft Prout Snowgoose catamaran. We sailed that boat thousands of miles including an Atlantic circuit. In full cruising trim it weighed 5.5t. My wife was often seasick. Below you had a good view out but it didnt help. She took seasickness tablets on a regular basis. The motion of the cat was jerky. Although cats sail flat, they lay to the shape of the sea so if its rough they get thrown around. If they are light they get thrown around. Our next boat couldn’t be more different. A 44ft cruising monohull. She is deep draft with a lead keel that weighs 6 tonnes. The all up weight is circa 18t. She has tall heavy masts. The motion of the boat is long and slow ( not the boat speed, she is fast). My wife is a lot less prone to seasickness now. In fact, we cant remember when she was last sick. If we leave on a long bumpy passage she will take pills for the first day or two as a precaution. I do the cooking. After a couple of days at sea she is fine and needs no more pills. We are convinced that the motion of the boat plays a major role in seasickness.

A late friend of mine helped deliver several yachts from France to the Caribbean when the French government was still engaged in their tax deferment scheme. Of all the passages, he told me, the one he made on a catamaran was the most uncomfortable due to the unpredictable motion of the boat.