Steel boat as a long-term liveaboard (in a warm(er) climate).

[dom]

Hull speed of 10kts with a slippery boat would = water line of 50ft? Thought that was rather bigger that was being discussed?

Agree, probably even plus a bit more. No idea what the boat is, but depending on sea conditions an old Open 60 would most likely settle at 11-11.5kts in 20kts TWS, giving 28.5kts AWS, 33deg AWA and 7.2kts VMG. That would see c.170 miles VMG to windward per day.

I'm guessing there's some mistake here though: a 32ft boat, with a moderate SAD, a highish wetted surface, highish windage and a fairly heavy displacement -- well I'd be amazed if it could exceed 3.5-4kts windward VMG.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Agree, probably even plus a bit more. No idea what the boat is, but depending on sea conditions an old Open 60 would most likely settle at 11-11.5kts in 20kts TWS, giving 28.5kts AWS, 33deg AWA and 7.2kts VMG. That would see c.170 miles VMG to windward per day.

I'm guessing there's some mistake here though: a 32ft boat, with a moderate SAD, a highish wetted surface, highish windage and a fairly heavy displacement -- well I'd be amazed if it could exceed 3.5-4kts windward VMG.

I understand Brent’s designs/builds are 36’ or 31’ LOA.

 

[dom]

I understand Brent’s designs/builds are 36’ or 31’ LOA.

Foiling steel, typo, or the man upstairs!

 

[NormanS]

1000 miles to windward in 6 days is 166 miles MADE GOOD in each 24 hours. Assuming a tacking angle of 90 degrees that’s 230 miles through the water in each 24 hours before you allow for leeway... this means you need to be averaging over ten knots for 24 hours a day for six days.

I’ll allow others to comment about what they think of this claim.

I wonder in what context Annie Hill would have mentioned the boats?

I've always found in the real world, if I see some claim which is obviously wrong, and it doesn't affect me personally, it's better just to ignore it. Some people are like fish, and rise to the bait every time. I am aware that a Forum is not the real world.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I've always found in the real world, if I see some claim which is obviously wrong, and it doesn't affect me personally, it's better just to ignore it. Some people are like fish, and rise to the bait every time. I am aware that a Forum is not the real world.

I didn’t say it was wrong. I merely pointed out what the claim really means. Others can judge whether to call him out on it.

 

[NormanS]

I didn’t say it was wrong. I merely pointed out what the claim really means. Others can judge whether to call him out on it.

Yes, and I liked the way you said that you would allow others to comment. How condescending of you!

 

[john_morris_uk]

Yes, and I liked the way you said that you would allow others to comment. How condescending of you!

You don’t need my permission to use a well known turn of phrase....

Of course if you’re looking for reasons to take offence and interpret ‘allow’ in that context as ‘my giving permission’ then please take this reply as my full permission to be as offended as will make you happy...’.

 

[Brent Swain]

1000 miles to windward in 6 days is 166 miles MADE GOOD in each 24 hours. Assuming a tacking angle of 90 degrees that’s 230 miles through the water in each 24 hours before you allow for leeway... this means you need to be averaging over ten knots for 24 hours a day for six days.

I’ll allow others to comment about what they think of this claim.

I wonder in what context Annie Hill would have mentioned the boats?

If you search the origami boats site, and search Silas Crosby you will find those runs described by Opus Paul, and Dr Steve Millar. I also have a post card from Hawaii from Will Newcomb making 1006 miles to windward in 6 days.
Are you saying that all those people sailing my boats are wrong, and armchair speculators know more about them, having never even seen one, than people who cross oceans in them?
Those were made on one tack, against the prevailing NW winds off that coast.
Sadly, Will died, from working too long building fibreglass boats.
Your assumption that it was made short tacking, is an incorrect assumption, which inevitably results in incorrect conclusions,
166 miles a day is 6.9166 knots average.

 

[john_morris_uk]

If you search the origami boats site, and search Silas Crosby you will find those runs described by Opus Paul, and Dr Steve Millar. I also have a post card from Hawaii from Will Newcomb making 1006 miles to windward in 6 days.
Are you saying that all those people sailing my boats are wrong, and armchair speculators know more about them, having never even seen one, than people who cross oceans in them?
Those were made on one tack, against the prevailing NW winds off that coast.
Sadly, Will died, from working too long building fibreglass boats.
Your assumption that it was made short tacking, is an incorrect assumption, which inevitably results in incorrect conclusions,
166 miles a day is 6.9166 knots average.

I haven’t accused anyone of being wrong. Read my post.

To windward usually means ‘to a point upwind from your departure point’ that involves at least one tack. If you meant that they made a passage of 1000 miles in six days hard on the wind or close reaching on one tack, then say so.

The last seriously long passage I made to windward was over 1000 miles from Rio de Janiero N against the wind and current to the NE corner of Brazil where we were able to bear away on the NE Trades down to the Carib. It took us more than 6 days even though we were hard on the wind and making over 180 miles a day through the water as we had current against us as well.

I’m not sure why you mention arm chair sailors again.

Averaging 7 knots in the trade winds is not such an unusual occurrence.

 

[jordanbasset]

Those were made on one tack, against the prevailing NW winds off that coast.
Sadly, Will died, from working too long building fibreglass boats.
.

Brent perhaps it is the problem about being divided by a common language, but I didn't consider sailing for a 1000 miles on one tack to be sailing upwind.

 

[Brent Swain]

Brent perhaps it is the problem about being divided by a common language, but I didn't consider sailing for a 1000 miles on one tack to be sailing upwind.

Sure aint running or reaching!

 

[Brent Swain]

Where you have added your hand made stuff welded to the decks after the boat was made and insulated, the answer is not a lot of insulation.
Maybe this is where you get so many fires from? or did you use the proper foam for the job?

How do you seal your engine room airtight having cut a big hole in the side to run a welder ?
This on a boat that requires so little to keep it working.

That is why it is a good idea to do all your detail before foaming.If you have more to weld on ,scrape the foam out at least 3 inches from around the weld and cram a wet rag in, propped up on a piece of wet plywood. Then, cool each inch of weld with water before continuing,. Some one inside with a hose is good idea.After welding scrape any paint off at least an inch beyond that which is obviously burned. The do your 5 coats of epoxy and replace the foam.Some canned foam is closed cell, some more open.Avoid the open cell stuff.
I have a removable panel for my welder belt.

 

[rotrax]

Sure aint running or reaching!

I said I was done with this thread, but this needs an answer. To me-with a mere 16 years experience-sailing on one tack is NOT going to windward. My mentor for my early passage making was one of the Skippers from JSASTC at HMS Hornet. He was effectivly a full time passagemaker under sail.

I would take his knowlege above BS's any time.

Sailing on one tack can be anything from close hauled to running, but going to windward it aint!

Your example sounds like he was close hauled or close reaching, neither of which will allow movement towards the direction of the wind.

Near to the direction of the wind, but not towards it.

The English Channel has predominatly SW or W winds.

Sailing vessels could be windbound in the EC for weeks and not be able to make any Westing in the days of sail only.

If only it was so easy Brent..........................................

 

[Bajansailor]

Mr Bassett mentioned earlier about how we are divided by a common language - English in this case, and that is very true.
I would like to think that I have an equal understanding of North American English and English English (having lived on both sides of the pond), and I see nothing wrong in saying that you are sailing to windward if you are just sailing on one tack.
If I am sailing close hauled (ie hard on the wind) at (say) 7 knots and 45 degrees wind angle, then for simplicity (ignoring any current or leeway) after a few hours I will have sailed 21 miles.
If my actual destination is dead upwind, I have still made good approx 15 miles towards my destination. So I have sailed upwind (ie to windward), no?

John, you are speaking 'English' English, and not allowing for the fact that us folk in the New World are perhaps more prone to speaking 'North American' English, and you could perhaps be a bit more patient here.
Instead of lambasting Brent (again) for a perceived grammatical technicality, why not just ask a polite question? Instead you have to mention that you sailed a thousand miles from Rio beating to windward, but Brent sailing a thousand miles hard on the wind on one tack is not sailing to windward.
Isn't this all getting rather absurd?

Another instance, many pages earlier (I have been following this thread with interest, and I think I might have offered a comment very early on, but I can't remember now), John again jumped down Brent's throat for saying that a single ventilation hatch on a 31' boat simply couldn't work, because multiple hatches on your Westerly still had a hard time (or something to that effect - it was long ago).
We had a 37' steel boat (with just a single hatch in the forecabin) in the tropics for 18 years, during which time we learnt pretty much everything about how steel boats 'shouldn't' be built (it was a steep learning curve, and we learnt a lot).
I would have loved to have had a boat like Brent's, with proper paint coatings and insulation, but we got saddled with ours accidentally (and that is a long story in itself).
And although she was no grey hound (she even had bilge keels, ye gawds!), we could still sail at 6 knots hard on the wind with a clean bottom in typical tradewind conditions.
Our insulation was only polystyrene foam blocks between the steel and the headlining, but it was still reasonably effective, and the boat was quite comfortably cool down below with the forehatch open.
And this is sailing between 12 - 17N in the Caribbean.

After the experience we had with our steel boat, I would agree generally with a fair bit of what Brent says - however he does come across as being a bit abrasive (and dare I say pugnacious?) which does him no favours (or favors even).
But if you 'cut him some slack' (if I may use an expression from this side of the pond) and read between the lines, there is a lot of useful info (ok, for steel boat owners only perhaps) in Brent's posts.

Lighten up chaps - lets all play nicely on here. Being a keyboard warrior only raises your blood pressure. There is always a polite way of asking a question, and this has to be better any day than making vitriolic accusations.

 

[rotrax]

Mr Bassett mentioned earlier about how we are divided by a common language - English in this case, and that is very true.
I would like to think that I have an equal understanding of North American English and English English (having lived on both sides of the pond), and I see nothing wrong in saying that you are sailing to windward if you are just sailing on one tack.
If I am sailing close hauled (ie hard on the wind) at (say) 7 knots and 45 degrees wind angle, then for simplicity (ignoring any current or leeway) after a few hours I will have sailed 21 miles.
If my actual destination is dead upwind, I have still made good approx 15 miles towards my destination. So I have sailed upwind (ie to windward) no?

I take your points on board and will try to act on them.

However, windward is defined as where the wind is coming from.
Dictionaries and Wiki.

So, you might make 15 miles towards your destination, but you cant get there without tacking.

Brent was suggesting that a modest steel boat could do 1,000 NM to windward at an average of almost 7 kts.

Which is, quite frankly, amazing for a cruising sailboat of that size.

Then he adjusts the criteria and its all on one tack, where it becomes pretty ordinary.

To get to a destination due North, with the wind from due North, one tack wont cook it. So, as far as I-and I suspect many others are concerned- thats not going to windward.

 

[Bajansailor]

I take your point about the official definitions in wiki and dictionaries, but how many sailors subscribe to official definitions of anything? Very few probably.

I think that we are getting very pedantic if we start to argue about what sailing to windward means.
As I mentioned above, sailing to windward probably has a diferent interpretation generally on this side of the Atlantic.
If I am sailing hard on the wind, enjoying myself, then I consider that I am sailing to windward, never mind that others on here might argue that I am simply making way towards the wind (or something like that).
I don't think it is worth all of us getting our collective knickers in twists over semantics.
Even in our tubby old bilge keeler, we could do 6 knots (ok, not 7, but we didnt have a high aspect ratio keel) while hard on the wind - and if the wind was steady, yes, we could have probably kept that up for 1,000 miles and perhaps taken a day or two longer than Brent's boat.
But I wouldn't be worried about this - I would still find plenty to do to keep myself occupied on the passage (and I have done quite a few long offshore passages in the past).

 

[rotrax]

I take your point about the official definitions in wiki and dictionaries, but how many sailors subscribe to official definitions of anything? Very few probably.

I think that we are getting very pedantic if we start to argue about what sailing to windward means.
As I mentioned above, sailing to windward probably has a diferent interpretation generally on this side of the Atlantic.
If I am sailing hard on the wind, enjoying myself, then I consider that I am sailing to windward, never mind that others on here might argue that I am simply making way towards the wind (or something like that).
I don't think it is worth all of us getting our collective knickers in twists over semantics.
Even in our tubby old bilge keeler, we could do 6 knots (ok, not 7, but we didnt have a high aspect ratio keel) while hard on the wind - and if the wind was steady, yes, we could have probably kept that up for 1,000 miles and perhaps taken a day or two longer than Brent's boat.
But I wouldn't be worried about this - I would still find plenty to do to keep myself occupied on the passage (and I have done quite a few long offshore passages in the past).

I am sorry, but I dont agree.

To me, it is clear and unequivical.

Windward is the EXACT direction the wind is coming from.

If you can get to a destination directly into the wind without tacking you are in a motorboat. If you have sails you need to tack.

IMHO, being close hauled or on a close reach is NOT going to windward. You will make progress at an angle to the wind direction. If your destination is directly into the wind, using sails you will not lay that course.

Brent's comment led us to believe " 1,000 NM to windward at 6 plus kts. " That is outstanding sailing performance by a cruising boat.

But we were sadly dissapointed.........................................

 

[jordanbasset]

I am sorry, but I dont agree.

To me, it is clear and unequivical.

Windward is the EXACT direction the wind is coming from.

If you can get to a destination directly into the wind without tacking you are in a motorboat. If you have sails you need to tack.

IMHO, being close hauled or on a close reach is NOT going to windward. You will make progress at an angle to the wind direction. If your destination is directly into the wind, using sails you will not lay that course.

Brent's comment led us to believe " 1,000 NM to windward at 6 plus kts. " That is outstanding sailing performance by a cruising boat.

But we were sadly dissapointed.........................................

That has always been my understanding

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Mr Bassett mentioned earlier about how we are divided by a common language - English in this case, and that is very true.
I would like to think that I have an equal understanding of North American English and English English (having lived on both sides of the pond), and I see nothing wrong in saying that you are sailing to windward if you are just sailing on one tack.
If I am sailing close hauled (ie hard on the wind) at (say) 7 knots and 45 degrees wind angle, then for simplicity (ignoring any current or leeway) after a few hours I will have sailed 21 miles.
If my actual destination is dead upwind, I have still made good approx 15 miles towards my destination. So I have sailed upwind (ie to windward), no?

John, you are speaking 'English' English, and not allowing for the fact that us folk in the New World are perhaps more prone to speaking 'North American' English, and you could perhaps be a bit more patient here.
Instead of lambasting Brent (again) for a perceived grammatical technicality, why not just ask a polite question? Instead you have to mention that you sailed a thousand miles from Rio beating to windward, but Brent sailing a thousand miles hard on the wind on one tack is not sailing to windward.
Isn't this all getting rather absurd?

Another instance, many pages earlier (I have been following this thread with interest, and I think I might have offered a comment very early on, but I can't remember now), John again jumped down Brent's throat for saying that a single ventilation hatch on a 31' boat simply couldn't work, because multiple hatches on your Westerly still had a hard time (or something to that effect - it was long ago).
We had a 37' steel boat (with just a single hatch in the forecabin) in the tropics for 18 years, during which time we learnt pretty much everything about how steel boats 'shouldn't' be built (it was a steep learning curve, and we learnt a lot).
I would have loved to have had a boat like Brent's, with proper paint coatings and insulation, but we got saddled with ours accidentally (and that is a long story in itself).
And although she was no grey hound (she even had bilge keels, ye gawds!), we could still sail at 6 knots hard on the wind with a clean bottom in typical tradewind conditions.
Our insulation was only polystyrene foam blocks between the steel and the headlining, but it was still reasonably effective, and the boat was quite comfortably cool down below with the forehatch open.
And this is sailing between 12 - 17N in the Caribbean.

After the experience we had with our steel boat, I would agree generally with a fair bit of what Brent says - however he does come across as being a bit abrasive (and dare I say pugnacious?) which does him no favours (or favors even).
But if you 'cut him some slack' (if I may use an expression from this side of the pond) and read between the lines, there is a lot of useful info (ok, for steel boat owners only perhaps) in Brent's posts.

Lighten up chaps - lets all play nicely on here. Being a keyboard warrior only raises your blood pressure. There is always a polite way of asking a question, and this has to be better any day than making vitriolic accusations.

+1
Well said.

 

[Robin]

I am sorry, but I dont agree.

To me, it is clear and unequivical.

Windward is the EXACT direction the wind is coming from.

If you can get to a destination directly into the wind without tacking you are in a motorboat. If you have sails you need to tack.

IMHO, being close hauled or on a close reach is NOT going to windward. You will make progress at an angle to the wind direction. If your destination is directly into the wind, using sails you will not lay that course.

Brent's comment led us to believe " 1,000 NM to windward at 6 plus kts. " That is outstanding sailing performance by a cruising boat.

But we were sadly dissapointed.........................................

+1 and if the boat can only manage to sail at 90 degs to the wind it is not even getting close to going 'up' wind. Such was the fate of many a square rigger getting embayed I believe. But in any even 7kts in a chunkyish 30 foot boat is optimistic. M sleek 41 foot cruiser racer with deep fin keel tall rig and high tech sails managed a remarkable 7kts at 28 degrees to the apparent ( note not true)wind and not much could better that except out and out racers or with significant engine assistance. A weighty, cruise laden, 30/31 ft boat will have a waterline length of somewhat less than 30ft and a theoretical hull speed of maybe approaching 7kts achievable on high days and holidays with a 'free wind' not averaged over 1000 miles 'upwind' To claim thus is optimistic poetic licence at it's best. Perhaps it is the flames from the mighty afterburner below decks that add significant boost before that is extinguished by shutting all vents. [/sarcasm].

But setting realism aside, BS has some very good points to make that simply get lost because of the abrasive manner of their making, sad..:ambivalence:. .