Selecting a Sailboat Plan

[ShagRock]

I've looked into various design plans for a 14' to 18' small sailboat that will take a 10 hp outboard - to use for coastal cruising and island hopping. I prefer an open deck design and one that can take some rough sea. I looked at Sevenson's Weekender (lot of if's there), Welsford's Pathfinder, the Coresound 17, Arch Davis' Penobscot, and Kurylko's Alaskan amongst others. Does anyone have opinions to offer on which of these boats or other designs in this general range are most seaworthy eg. say to venture across a 15 mile channel in choppy seas? I know this is a bit broad, but I need some assistance in narrowing down the choices.

Shagrock

[James McMullen]

The Weekender is very, very much not the most seaworthy of that lot. The Pathfinder would be my choice for seaworthiness- - -though you ought to know that a 10 hp outboard is more than doubly overpowered for any of those designs. A 4 or 5 hp is the absolute biggest and heaviest outboard you would even want for a displacement hull of that size range. These aren't smooth water planing skiffs we're talking about. Most of the guys I know with boats of this type find the Honda 2hp to be overly ample to propel a 16' open sail & oar boat. A heavy outboard will definitely degrade your sailing performance.

I would also reccommend looking at Oughtred's Caledonia Yawl which takes an outboard in a well. A motor that is inboard rather than hanging out over the stern could be even more convenient to service and refill with fuel while afloat, as well as keeping all of that penalty weight closer in to your center of bouyancy.

[StevenBauer]

I don't see you listing Oughtred's designs or Vivier's or Paul Fisher's. Not to get you even more confused. ;)

www.classicmarine.co.uk/boatsearch.asp

www.vivierboats.com

www.selway-fisher.com

I'll second the Caledonia Yawl recommendation. I sailed on Chris's last year at the Small Reach Regatta, what a wonderful, capable design.

Steven

[BarnacleGrim]

Consider the Bateau.com (http://www.bateau.com/products.php?cat=14) Adelie and Vagabond series.

http://www.bateau.com/prodimages/VG18_350.jpg

[Ian McColgin]

Especially in this size range, more people get into trouble with an OB than ever get out. Look to a good sailor that can be rowed and free yourself of weight that could be better located and better utilized and a smell that can be lived without.

G'luck

[JimD]

I like Pathfinder. Like others say, anything but a Stevenson Weekender, and 10 hp is way too much.

[SeaB]

You might consider the 14' semi-dory in "The Dory Book" by John Gardner. In the article, the builder featured tried the boat with motors up to 20 hp. I would not presume to comment on the sea worthiness of the semi-dory, but I'm certain that some opinions might be offered by those more qualified. There are several other semi-dories offered as well ranging from 12' to 19'8", although the 14' is the only one that is setup as a sailboat as I remember.

[kenjamin]

I power my Caledonia Yawl with a 4 HP Yamaha. It purrs along at hull speed with 1/2 throttle in typical conditions but has much reserve power for wind and waves. It has a remote tank so for your trip there would be no need to refuel at sea, just hook it up and go. The 4 HP Yamaha four stroke weighs 47 lbs. and has twice the power of the little 27 lb. 2 HP Honda. Of course you have to figure the weight of the Yamaha's remote tank. It would be difficult to use more than three gallons in a day but you could always use a six gallon tank for really long range capability and the weight of the tank can be located anywhere on the boat (unless you smoke). James is right that a lot of CY owners use the 2 HP Honda as auxiliary power but I wanted the extra long range and reserve power of the 4 HP Yamaha. You may want to beef up the motor mount and case of the CY if you go with the larger motor. The Caledonia Yawl has no problem at all with the weight of the larger 4 HP motor and fuel tank (I think it's good ballast) but a ten horse motor would be crazy heavy and inefficient.

[TerryLL]

Shagrock,

The boats you're considering are 4-5 kn boats. When you're in the middle of that 15-mile channel, in choppy seas, you're about an hour and a half from shore. If the weather comes up you won't be able to outrun it. So, pick a boat that can save your butt when things go from bad to worse. I'll offer yet another vote for the Caledonia Yawl.

[Woxbox]

Here's another vote for the Caledonia with a small motor. Welsford's stuff is fine, too.

[Thorne]

As asked, nothing - the 10hp motor probably too much for the boats you mention if mounted on the transom, particularly in a heavy sea.

Guessing that a 2-4 hp outboard would work, then either the Pathfinder or CoreSound, as you'll want decks and flotation for rough water work.

If you want something that can take the larger outboard, then the Gardner semi-dory might work -- although the 14' design might still be too small for that motor, depending on weight. If you want to modify his plans, you may need to move up to the larger one set up for sail, possibly with wider side-decks added to the design.

Here's a few shots of a recent restoration posted here -
http://www.acountrylife.com/misc/dory/DSCF0708_thumb.jpg http://www.acountrylife.com/misc/dory/DSCF0704_thumb.jpg
http://www.acountrylife.com/misc/dory/DSCF0705_thumb.jpg

Here's a 12' semi-dory rebuilt for power only, reported to plane at 10mph with a 15hp motor -
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/03/r/articles/affair/pic6.jpg

[bloggs68]

Like the others have said, the CY is a great contender, particularly with built in buoyancy. The drascombe peter boat may also fit the bill and provide a bit of shelter at the end of the trip. I would certainly feel a bit safer with some decking in interesting coastal conditions. 15 miles doesn't sound far but it would seem like a lot when the wind pipes up and you still have 7.5nm to go.

Another great choice would be the Bay Raider from Swallow Boats - the extra stability from the water ballast may be a bonus when shorthanded.

And for something out of left field http://ideaintegrator.com/boats/tmc/default.html

AD

[Spence]

ShagRock:

I think a glass 20' Halman or Nordica will fit the bill. The latter is IB auxiliary engined, the former OB auxiliary and are deep keeled double enders. Tight cabin sleeps 4. They are available in 16ft also.
Very sea capable.

Not worth the building, they can be had for $5-6000 and a bit more with the trailer.

http://www.nordicaboats.com/html/nordica-20.html

m2c

Spence

[ShagRock]

Ahoy mates, I thank you all for the generous feedback. If I take it as a whole, I can see I may need to look at a slightly larger boat. I agree that in this range of boat a 10hp is 'overload'. Aside from the Loa aspect, I guess it's not easy to find designs that can both sail and power well. As such, the outboard in a sailboat is there more as an accessory power such as getting home if you broke a mast! For comparison, is a 10 hp too much on a 20' boat with hull at 500lbs? Is there a simple 'rule of thumb" method to estimate size of OB based on boat size, weight etc?

James' advise is well taken re having the OB in a well. Terry's analysis on crossing that 15 mile channel was dead on. As Thorne noted, decking and flotation is important, and I guess this can be done as an add-on with some designs.

Thanks to all for suggesting alternate designs, that I had not reviewed before. I found other threads to read on this forum regarding the Caledonia Yawl and well look into similar yawl boats. I was impressed with the Bay Raider. Unfortunately, this company does not sell plans and I want to build as opposed to buy. Anyone know of similar sized (=<20') that employs a water ballast system? What do you think of the 'water ballast' concept? Can something be easily rigged to achieve the same effect?

ShagRock

[Woxbox]

ShagRock --- I'm not sure why you keep coming back to a desire to have the biggest motor possible on this boat. I used to have a 25' trimaran, and a 5 hp motor was plenty for that boat. An 18' pocket cruiser I used to do short cruises in had 4 hp, also plenty. Keep in mind that if a boat is seaworthy and sails well, the hull will not be designed to take advantage of more power than it takes to reach hull speed. And that's not much. 4 hp is the most you'll ever need, 2 hp would do it in a lighter, unballasted boat, and it will be lighter and easier to handle and burn much less fuel than a bigger motor.

This boat doesn't fit your original description, but it does fill the sailing requirements -- Bolger's Long Micro. 19' of full keel, ballasted, very secure and able boat that's designed to be easy to build with lumberyard goods. It is easily trailerable and the mast swings down in a tabenacle.

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.common-sense-boats.com/LM1%2520under%2520sail.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHVsF7_FcwxCcTuC1Ja8Ee2Fjppmg

[TerryLL]

Second the comments by Woxbox about motor size. The most popular motor for he Caledonia Yawl is the 2 HP air-cooled Honda. Unless you're driving a shoe box, a very small motor will push it to hull speed.

There is a Caledonia Yawl forum you should take a look at if you have any thoughts about that design:

http://www.mavc2002.com/cyforum/viewforum.php?f=2

Iain Oughtred has a raft of lovely designs that might interest you:

http://www.classicmarine.co.uk/boatsearch.asp

[James McMullen]

Water ballast dictates some huge compromises in hull shape and design because water doesn't make particularly good ballast, being so lightweight and bulky. The specific gravity of lead is 11.35, whereas the specific gravity of water is 1. That means you need to devote nearly a dozen times more volume to your ballast with water ballast than you would with a chunk of lead, and what's more, that water ballast only really starts to work when the boat heels enough to bring that water up above the waterline of your boat, because the water ballast below the waterline has neutral bouyancy!

Now the specific gravity of pure gold is even more favorable, 19.3! It's pretty much immune to galvanic corrosion, even. That's what I want for my next boat. . . . . .

[TerryLL]

It's an Osmium keel for me, specific gravity 22.5.

[paladin]

Depleted uranium works also...or tungsten....

[Thorne]

As is so often the case, we are doing a lot of headscratching and guessing due to lack of info and specific requirements concerning the desired features of the design.

Can we assume you have a 10hp outboard already? If so, long or shortshaft?

And yes, sailing and motoring often require different hull forms -- that is why you only see a few combined sail/motor designs and none of 'em are very popular.

So - the needed info: What coast and waters, how many crew, what budget, what towvehicle, any storage limits, etc etc etc.

[Woxbox]

and what's more, that water ballast only really starts to work when the boat heels enough to bring that water up above the waterline of your boat, because the water ballast below the waterline has neutral bouyancy!


I really don't want to start a sidebar to this discussion that goes on for days, but this just ain't so. This idea has been repeated all over the net on and off for years, and it's not physics.

In a word, mass is mass is mass is mass. It don't know if it's put into a boat as ballast or as the captain's chair. It's just mass. When you add "ballast" to a boat you're adding mass low down, which adds to the total mass and displacement of the boat, and relocates the center of gravity, too.

As a result, the boat will by force behave differently. But the boat absolutely does not all of a sudden behave differently at a specific angle of heel at which the "ballast" mass rises above the water level.

No question, water as ballast takes up more space, and because it is bulkier you can't pull the center of gravity lower with water as easily as you can with lead or uranium or gold (also nice and heavy.) Flip side, if you want an unsinkable boat, lead needs to be compensated for someplace with watertight space or foam or whatever. Water doesn't need such compensating volume.

Rant over. Please don't shoot the messenger.

[James McMullen]

Woxbox, you are right that mass is mass. . .but also volume is volume, and the diffusely spread out volume of water ballast is really inefficient at keeping a boat rightside up compared to a nice, compact slug of lead. The displacement of the entire boat is essentially based on its average density for its volume, and the unconcentrated density of water ballast compared to the medium the boat is floating in is pretty unfavorable for getting the center of gravity of said boat nice and low and well below the center of buoyancy. That is why the typical water ballasted boat has real high sides and a wide, flat bottom--it's to give the boat a bunch of form stability and reserve buoyancy up high because the boat can't rely very well on its ballast alone to keep her upright. Both wide, flat bottoms and super high sides have some unpleasant side characteristics to contend with.

[Woxbox]

OK James, no quibbling on those points. It just gets my hackles up at the suggestion that ballast has brains -- knows that it's ballast, and takes on different physical qualities than the surrounding bits of the boat, and even pulls down harder when it's above the waterline.

I almost built the Martha Jane some years back. The water ballast in that Bolger box makes lots of sense. It's split into two tanks under the berths/settees. The tanks are about 8" deep at the deepest part. The spread-out volume is said to help dampen the undesirable motion that the boat's sharpie-style box sections can create in a seaway.

But moreover, if you put in an equal mass of lead in place of the water in that particular boat, the center of gravity of the boat hardly moves at all. Now in a deep hull, the picture would be entirely different, of course.

But as I said, I'm not trying to start a long debate. :D

[ShagRock]

I agree I should have been more specific with respect to needs and limitations. First, I'll not pretend than most of my boating experience was in OB driven wooden boats on the coast of Newfoundland. I've been in a couple of 30' (?) pleasure schooners but only as guest and helping hand.:) I'd like a small sailboat 1) to build it and 2) learn to sail it. The likelihood of doing this in the Philippines is a distinct possibility. Use will be for 2 to 4 people max, yet easily sailed by one crew. This will include coastal inshore cruising/camping/fishing and some island hopping (thus the question on the 15 mile channel).

I have studied (web only) all of the designs noted above. The Vivier Lilou and Ebihan boats remind me of NF skiff - the latter I assisted in building via carvel method and by 'modified' strip plank method that used hot water bent larch ribs and that skips the edge nailing and need for calking. The Vivier boats noted here have ribs, can be strip planked or built with plywood. It includes steel keel and centerboard, a balanced 'in the center design' for OB and rudder. It has flotation chambers and water ballast (perhaps the latter could be left out?). I have a lot of trust in fishermen elders of old and the boats they built. I think these designs can take a good level of choppy sea.

I note that the lack of comment on Kurylko's Alaskan - again maybe it's too light for that 15 mile channel? I'm not prepared to say how the Newfie skiff stacks up in comparison, but it might nice to hear that from some of you more experienced sailors! I am keen on building it functional not necessarily sticking to the glossy catalog pictures for finish. If budget gets in the way, I'll seal it and paint it - like all those little white ones lined up in the harbor like a row of pickets on a whitewashed fence.

ShagRock

[James McMullen]

I think Kurylko's Alaska would be an appropriate boat for an experienced skipper in a 15 mile channel. I think it's a pretty nifty boat. . . . .but I wouldn't want to build one for myself because I don't enjoy the sawdust and sandpaper intensive cedarstrip building technique, I don't like ketches, preferring a yawl rig in every way, and especially because my wife thinks double-enders are prettier boats--and you've got to get some support from your crew to stave off mutiny. Despite my personal and perhaps idiosyncratic preferences, the Alaska is a great sail & oar boat. . . . .

. . . .but because it is optimised in beam to make it an efficient rowboat as well as a sailboat, it will be even more unsuitable to clamp that oversized 10hp outboard on than some of the other designs. My own Rowan is similarly slanted towards the sail and oar side of small boats, and I don't own or use an outboard with her, preferring the challlenge of getting where I want to go using seamanship, wits and my own sweat. Going no-octane is infinitely more satisfying for me.

Here's a pic of my brother and me, about halfway over on an eight-mile crossing:

http://inlinethumb06.webshots.com/42565/2108726080088484686S600x600Q85.jpg (http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2108726080088484686yCCBvY)

[Ian McColgin]

I ask again why the motor? In rough weather it's inefficient to useless on such a boat. Just positioning to pull the start cord is a hazard. The time spent fiddling with it rather than attenting to the boat is dangerous. You will be able to sail or row your way out of more difficulty than the motor can handle.

The motor perhaps doubles the cruising speed over rowing on a calm day - perhaps better than that netted out is powering against a light headwind - but that's a very paltry trade-off. Modify the destination and learn the joys of night sailing.

You may detect that I really hate defacing a good little beach cruiser that rows ok and sails ok. Such a boat motors poorly and if you use a well, will sail and row poorly also. If you use a bracket, it's just something to foul a sheet.

Really, kick free of the petropollution.

Note that all my larger boats have had motors that ran at some point. I'm not insanely against the infernal destruction engin, just it's wrong application. A beach cruiser is just so very much more fun without an egg beater.

G'luck

[neilm]

Good point Ian. What is the optimal beam for an oar and sail boat? My experience is very limited so I can only guess.

Neil

[Ian McColgin]

Since you size the oars to the beam at the oarlocks, there is no optimal size. It's hard to use 8 foot oars, a nice normal minimum for cruising, on a beam less than four or five feet and at that many folk would prefer 7 footers.

G'luck

[paladin]

..unless you use the oar for sculling....a neat thing to learn......

[James McMullen]

Good point Ian. What is the optimal beam for an oar and sail boat?

My favorite boat has a beam of 5'4" which seems to be just about right for my purposes. I pull 9 1/2' oars in her. The raw number of max beam is insufficient to really decide whether the boat is a decent enough rowboat or not, as there are many other variables to take into account also. The way the volume is distributed, the fineness of the ends, the amount of reserve buoyancy and also windage are all variables that affect how well the boat handles a load or rough weather beyond how fast the boat is in calm water. A rowboat that you can also sail like a traditional faering or whitehall will have a relatively narrower beam than a sailboat with oar auxilliary like a shetland yole or swampscott dory. Then there are boats like the Caledonia Yawl which at 6' beam is bigger than you would like for singlehanded rowing, but does well with a pair of rowers or even with a small outboard.

You can't go too far wrong with a boat that was designed for use in the RAID sail & oar races. These boats are intended for the tricky compromises between sailing well and rowing satisfactorily.

[slidercat]

The Core Sound 17 is a pretty capable boat and won the Everglades Challenge one year, if I'm not mistaken.

An earlier and somewhat less seaworthy version of the CS 17 took its owners on a trip down Baja. Story here:

http://www.bandbyachtdesigns.com/Baja/Baja%20adventure.htm

According to the designer, the CS 17 came about because someone who'd sailed the Bay River Skiff wanted something he could take out into the Gulf. It's a nice-looking cat ketch, and probably a little easier to build than the Oughtred designs, though the latter are prettier.

[ShagRock]

Thanks James for the comment on the Alaskan and for the nice pics in that 8 mile channel! It seems that in a monohull, I am inherently attracted to old fishing skiff types. The 'vast' majority of the time, I'll be hugging the coast much like the couple in Slidercat's post, yet wanted a capable boat for an occasional crossing. By the way, what model is your Rowan?

James and Ian - I appreciate your testimony on the use of oars and they are even more ideal with two or more crew. I admit I was not aware of the inefficiency of an outboard on these type of sailors. Paladin hit on a very relevant point because on the small wooden boats in Newfoundland (skiffs, punts, rodneys and wooden speedboats), I used 'nothing but' a sculling oar. The Chinese knew what they doing inventing that devise. It can also serve as a decent makeshift rudder in case of emergency. So, how about a 2.5hp and a sculling oar as a compromise (for now)?

Slidercat - I know someone who has a Core Sound 17, so I can get some more first hand information on that design. I was told it's not too difficult a build for a 'plywood novice'.

I know that a Newfie trap skiff motors and sculls well, but I suspect it has re-designed for sail? I look into the couple I seen on the web. At this point, I think it's best for me to review again the top 5 choices from this post. Then I'll likely have more queries if you sailors don't mind.

Keep her head to the wind and her tail out of the wash!
Shagrock

[htom]

Don't choose a boat for the frequent good times, choose a design for those rarer bad times when you think that the sea is trying to kill you.

[James McMullen]

htom has a very good point here, in that a boat that can help take care of you by itself is really useful if you're going to be self-reliant in open waters. My Rowan is a custom boat most closely related to Iain Oughtred's Arctic Tern and J-II designs. Her historical ancestor is the Shetland yole which is cousin to faerings, surf lifeboats and whaleboats. . .and their ultimate ancestor are the famous boats of the vikings. These are widely considered to be amongst the most seaworthy open boats ever designed, though they are not very burdensome for their length as they devote a good portion of their length to the raking ends and reserve buoyancy that carries them over and through tide rips, breaking waves and surf.

Do you have a chance to visit one of the wooden boat meccas in Maine or Washington State where you can see a bunch of these different boats up close and personal? The current Small Boats special edition of WoodenBoat Magazine has an article on the Small Reach Regatta where you can see pictures and commentary about all sorts of these sail & oar type boats--well worth looking up! My Rowan is roughly halfway between the Caledonia Yawl and the Dias Harrier Ran Tan in size.

[Come By Chance]

I've contacted Matt at Swallowboats about a panel kit for the Bayraider. The kit includes all the plywood parts cut out for 1995 GBP. I haven't checked on shipping cost to Newfoundland yet.

A kit is being considered because I've never built a boat before and I haven't sourced any marine ply on the Island yet. The Bayraider is the boat I desire the most right now! Also considering a Storm 17 kit with includes all material, Core Sound 17 kit, or a Pathfinder or a Ness Yawl from plans.

Their is a guy on the Avalon building a Pathfinder in his basement, he has a good blog. http://buildingpathfinder.blogspot.com/

Good luck in your search.

[ShagRock]

Welcome Come By Chance! It's nice to know that I'm not the only soul from the Rock caught up in the "perpetual boat builder's dream", i.e. what boat to build. I take it you read this thread, so you can appreciate the helpful advice from members of this forum.

I'm currently near the mountains, so marine plywood choices are limited here, but I'm sure there is much more available down your way (as there is in coastal BC). It not easy to get Douglas fir in marine grade anymore, but there is regular fir along with imported varieties like Okoume and Meranti. Aside from plywood, there's good local NF wood for structural pieces.

I'm suspect cost for a full kit for Bay Raider will be pricey! I'm leaning to build my own to save costs. The 'traditional fisherman' style of open boat is generally more seaworthy and an easier build; plus you can design and add your decking, flotation chambers, etc.

Best of luck in the Quest!
Shagrock

[ShagRock]

At this point, I would like to express my gratitude for the great advice from you sailors and boat builders who took the time and effort to respond to my questions. I have settled on further study of three plans - a Ness Yawl, the Alaskan, and of course the Newfoundland skiff - after all, coming from the Granite Rock I'd be 'hard put' not to consider the latter!:)

I have some home-made plans for NF skiff from friends on the Rock. I connected with Don Kurylko - real nice gentlemen - and have received study plans for his designs for the Alaskan and the Myst.

I have helped build a few small boats in Newfoundland using plank-on-rib methods. However, that was some years ago, so I'm thinking a lapstrake method might be an easier build. I welcome any opinions on that.

ShagRock

[James McMullen]

Lapstrake is my favorite method, period! I have built and repaired boats via stitch & glue, strip-planked, cold-molded, conventional carvel, fiberglass from a mold, skin-on-frame, glued ply lapstrake and traditional copper-fastened over steambent ribs lapstrake. Any of the last three methods provide more joy per average second of boatbuilding time than all of the others combined. Why? Two words: less sanding!!! Lapstrake means no longboarding--none!

[TerryLL]

Hard to beat glued ply-lap for ease of construction, availability of decent plank stock, good looks, high strength-to-weight ratio. adaptability to traditional designs. Sure beats the heck out of mig-welded aluminum for quality of life in the boatshop.

[Craic]

I am sailing a waterballasted boat for some years now, I am still alive BTW, and I find it curious how each and every discussion about waterballast turns theoretical immediately.

Because, what counts is the practice.
There waterballast works like a dream. No other form of ballast can give you two totally different character boats rolled into a single one. I have a lightweight planing dinghy with the ballast out, and a shallow water self righting 125 degrees AVS boat three minutes later, and a lightweight planing dinghy 5 minutes later again, all at the flip of three selfbailers.
Show me anyone any other ballast material that can do that.

AND there's a great lot of ballast water on this planet, AND it's completely free of charge. AND it's ideal not to have it when the boat sits on it's trailer.

Forget the theories, get practical.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

OK, Late to the conversation, but here goes.

Fair amount of misinformation is nsome of the responses here too.

First of all, the wuestion begs which waters?

I mean what is a reasonable boat to take offshore in warm Gulf coast waters is different than in cold Gulf of Maine waters insofar that a caspize in 45 degree water can leave you in deep sneakers pretty qucik as hypothermia will kill you quick.

In such waters I would not advocate significant passagemaking in any open cockpit unballasted boat.

Now having said that let me offer some of my insight between the Pathfinder, penobscot 17, CoreSound 17, and Stevensons Weekender.

The Weekender is out of consideration here for intended purposes. Period. I own one , it is the first boat I built and it has it's appeal, but it is not suitable for stated purposes on so many counts. It can be a reasonable build for some purposes but not for 15 mile open water passages.

OK. The Penobscot 17, Pathfinder and CoreSound. IN warm enough waters or colder waters with appropriately prepared and attired crew, all three could be justified. Not sure I would want to be out in gale force winds with 6-9 footers, but ...

Both Pathfinder and the CoreSOund boats are capable of planing performance. As such you are not limited to displacement speeds and as such they are not 4-5 knt boats as asserted earlier. In the 06 Everglades Challenge race a CoreSOund was 12 miles off shore in 25 knt winds with full sail deployed and maintaining 11 knts with surges to 12 knts in gusts.

I think the CoreSOund has a bit more planing potential than a Pathfinder, based on my consideration of hull form and reports I have read about with what people have experienced with a Pathfinder.

I have hear d reports of Pathfinder hitting low 10 knts range.

Planing performance in addition to making you faster helps in preventing you from being overpowered and broaching. Excess windpower translates to increased boat speed as opposed to excess heeling action. You remain much more in control of the boat with excellent steerage.

In the afore mentioned EC race while small displacemnt craft such as the Norseboat was overpowered while reefed, the CoreSound crew asked the skipper if he felt it was time to reef. The Skipper of the CS asked why while he held the tiller between thumb and forefinger and notched several degrees fomr centerline under complete control.

There was no fear of the boat being overpowered and broaching, A significant safety factor due to planing performance.

Another consideration should be mande to stowability and acces of gear in a boat out to see. SOme boats mentioned such as double enders with large open seat structres, (None that were mentioned in original post) become quite untennable in cruising mode with lack of closed storage spaces. A double ender by it's very nature narrowing at the stern stifles stowage space for cruising trim a fair amount. And, having minimal sealed storage spaces requires crew top make access in the boat untenable with having to step over dry storage bags lashed in the cockpit to seats.

The CoreSound excells in this situation with it's hard chine construction leaving very large side seat stowage and floatation chambers with enough bouyancy to hold the entire boat largely out of the water withthe seat tops preventing downflooding. Once righted there is little more than 6 inches in the cocklpit floors making self rescue a very feasible endeavor.

I believe Penobscot 17 has similar floatation however, the round hull sides reduces the facility of the storage area.

Pathfinder has a raised sleeping platform that doubles as substantial floatation chamber as well however I might be tempted to look into anm interior redo to make it more like the Penobscot and the CoreSOund. Not saying I would eventually change to that though I would be looking at it and considering it, esp if I wanted to take more people out with me on a regular basis.

So all three boats could work for you depoepnding on your individual desires for stated purpose

[Thermo]

I may be a bit prejudiced on this, and it's not the kewl thing on the forum, but none can argue it's a bad boat.

Though it's 21 feet, it's comparable to a 17-ish mono:

If it can handle circumnavigation, it can probably handle a 15 mile channel. It's definitely 'open' too. ;)

But again, 4hp is plenty on it, I'm planning on 10 hp for the 30 foot version of it.

http://wharram.com/sales/images/Tiki-21-.jpg

http://www.multihulls.uk.com/wharram/images/1068%20tiki%2021.jpg

[ShagRock]

James and Terry - thanks for the positive opinions with regard to the lapstrake method of building a boat. And Craig, I agree that water ballast does offer a definite advantage re reducing trailerable weight. As you note, one thinks here of having the "best of both worlds"!

Ray F. ***- your descriptive analysis of the Coresound caught out in a 'bit of a gale' is excellent! Highly relevant to my needs as outlined in my initial post. The CoreSound was on my list in the beginning, so it goes back there for study again!

As a young man, some friends and I took an open 25' NF trap skiff with the old crank starter engine across a 25 mile channel on a camping/fishing trip. We got caught on the tail end of a 100km wind/rain storm and 'barely' made it. After two nights in miserable conditions, we tried returning. There was not a draft of wind, but the swells were still so high we were in danger of being swamped at the stern; so 30 minutes out we had to go back and spend another night - but that one "luckily" was under the stars!:) At my age, I no longer take chances like that!

My lack of sailing (as opposed to boating) experience has made for much learning re hull forms, stability, flotation, etc. and appreciating the differences between a good sailing form versus a planing boat. By the way, I would be adding built in flotation to an open boat in any case.

So just where are the extremes with respect to pushing the enveloppe toward maximizing a combination of both in the same hull shape? Knowing the extremes would certainly help me appreciate the limitations.

So I guess the Coresound can take a larger hp OB, as opposed to the 4-5 knt boats referenced above? Now that Thermo has "let the Cat out of the bag" (lovely pictures, Thermo!), why not throw in a trimaran for discussion purposes as well. There's lots of them where I hope to go sailing!

Ah, Mates - the Quest continues!
Shagrock

[Craic]

... My lack of sailing (as opposed to boating) experience has made for much learning re hull forms, stability, flotation, etc. and appreciating the differences between a good sailing form versus a planing boat. By the way, I would be adding built in flotation to an open boat in any case. So just where are the extremes with respect to pushing the enveloppe toward maximizing a combination of both in the same hull shape? Knowing the extremes would certainly help me appreciate the limitations. ...

Shagrock,
forget about limitations, with waterballast there no longer is a difference beweeen sailing and planing, you can have both. Lookup the test of the BayRaider in Practical Boat Owner, February 09 .

[AJZimm]

I have settled on further study of three plans - a Ness Yawl, the Alaskan, and of course the Newfoundland skiff . . .
. . . so I'm thinking a lapstrake method might be an easier build. I welcome any opinions on that.
ShagRock

Shagrock,
I'm coming late to this thread. I finished building an Alaska last summer in glued lap. Here is a link to the pictures I took while building (more earlier than later - got lazy about picture taking).
http://s368.photobucket.com/albums/oo123/AJZimmerman/Hornpipe/
I haven't sailed it enough yet to answer your question about seaworthiness, but at least one of them has made the Inside Passage trip along the BC coast. See Don Kurylko's web site for pictures.
Here's a picture of my boat, "Hornpipe":
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo123/AJZimmerman/Hornpipe/launchdayandfirstsail/IMGP6539.jpg (http://s368.photobucket.com/albums/oo123/AJZimmerman/Hornpipe/)

[James McMullen]

One other consideration re planing hull shapes: they don't row as well. There is a compromise decision you will have to make regarding how much you want to rely on an outboard motor vs oars as your auxilliary propulsion. A Penobscot, Alaska, Ness Yawl, a Newfoundland Trap Skiff, or my own beloved Rowan are all true sail & oar boats, ones that you would not be miserable rowing 20 miles in a day in when the wind is absent.

A Pathfinder, Core Sound or Caledonia Yawl are all boats in which a 20 mile row would be excruciating--these boats are of a shape and beam where an outboard motor is essentially mandatory equipment if you want to get several miles from shore unless you are quite the athlete.

You makes yer pick and you takes yer chances.

[Come By Chance]

Craic, do you own a Sea Raider? If so how does it row and have you rowed a Bay Raider? I kayak a lot so a small sailboat that can be rowed is right up my alley. I want an engine for last resort use. Shagrock where is the 15 mile crossing?

[James McMullen]

The Bayraider is a nifty looking little boat, but she has over a foot more beam and more than double the weight even with the ballast tanks empty than my boat which I consider to be at the upper end of beam and weight for comfortable single-handed rowing. True dedicated pulling boats are going to be almost two feet narrower than a Bayraider. How much do rowing do you plan to do? You will have to make some compromises if you really want a boat that you can truly both row and sail and be happy. The Bayraider is in the same category as the Caledonia Yawl, Pathfinder, etc.--more of a sail & outboard boat than a sail & oar boat, especially for singlehanding. You might use oars for a short ways to get away from the dock, but you won't have much fun or get very far in a couple hours of rowing.

[Craic]

Craic, do you own a Sea Raider? If so how does it row and have you rowed a Bay Raider? I kayak a lot so a small sailboat that can be rowed is right up my alley. I want an engine for last resort use. Shagrock where is the 15 mile crossing?

CBC,
I have both boats. The SeaRaider rows at around 4.3 knots with a crew of four men. The BayRaider I have not yet rowed with crew in a Raid. Both boats row fine singlehanded in calm conditions. But as soon as there is a ripple on the water, you are better off under sails, because they pick up very quickly and sail very close winded and are self tacking.

By the way, also the Caledonian Yawls row and sail well with able crew, we often meet them in Raids.

I agree with having a small outboarder aboard, just in case. The small 2.3 Honda weighs just 12 kgs and provides hull speed. On the BayRaider both side lockers are plenty big enough to store an engine.

[ShagRock]

AJZimm - thanks for the beautiful photos of your Alaskan!! A superb job of boat building - a real piece of art!

James wrote:
One other consideration re planing hull shapes: they don't row as well. . You bring forth an important distinction, particularly with respect to selecting a sailboat plan that suits one's needs and "style of being on the water".

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you look at the history of the NF Trap Skiff (design being closest to a Whitehall); the hull shape changed over time dependent on 'purpose for use'. The early versions were rowed and 'sail assisted'. They were straight keeled and had adequate depth and stability to allow three men to stand at one side and load her with fish, without taking on water. They were built for the inshore fishery. The real sailing was done in schooners and other boats.

With the arrival of the inboard motor, the design was modified with extended skeg to protect the propellor. The hull shape here was certainly not that suited to sailing. When in recent times, someone wanted a 'sailing' trap skiff, the hull shape needed to be re-designed for this purpose. This is nice read on this subject about local NF boat builder Samuel Feltham; including some "kitchen table sketches"! http://jfeltham.blogspot.com/2006/06/basics-of-modern-wooden-boat-building.html/htm.

One question arising from this might be whether an inboard motor design (as opposed to outboard) could bring a boat closer to being a better motorized monohull sailboat. I have to leave this question to others, who have the expertise in design to answer this?

Come By Chance wrote:

Shagrock where is the 15 mile crossing?This 15 mile channel was used as a reference point for dicussion in my initial post. The 'rough water' trip noted above was a 35km trip from Green's Harbor to Deer Harbor across Trinity Bay in NF. A potential 15 mile crossing for me in the future hopefully will involve various island hopping destinations in the Philippines.

Shagrock

[James McMullen]

Caledonian Yawls row and sail well with able crewYes, yes, agreed. . . . . but only if you have able crew! Craic, I know that you yourself don't really like singlehanded RAID type boats, but for those who do wish or need to handle their boat under oars singlehanded, the Caledonia Yawl or other boats of that girth are not the best choice.

Shagrock, do you see yourself sailing mostly
a) always with active, participatory crew
b) sometimes with active crew, sometimes with just passengers
c)singlehanded or with unreliable crew (like a pair of Springer spaniels, and my wife whose full time job is keeping the first two from leaping overboard after seagulls, ducks and random bits of kelp floating by--just for instance)

There are different optimal boats for each of these categories--most especially if you are determined to be able to comfortably row, not just motor when the wind is fickle.

Here's one of my crewmembers digging for clams or something. . . . .

http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/36649/2555164620088484686S500x500Q85.jpg (http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2555164620088484686VJwbAc)

[TerryLL]

There's a pretty big gap between the boats that can be rowed comfortably over long distances, perhaps under adverse weather, and the boats that can be simply handled with oars. To row for hours on end, and do decent distance, requires a fairly light boat, low windage, and a long narrow hull. Can the CY be rowed? Sure. Can it be rowed 20 miles in a day, or even 10, without killing the crew? Probably not.

[kenjamin]

A Caledonia Yawl can be rowed comfortably by a crew of two but it takes special equipment. I've found that with an extra tall oarlock for a standing aft rower facing forward with one oar and a rower with one oar rowing conventionally face-to-face with the other aft rower is the way to go. In this manner, neither rower has to worry with clashing oars with the other, conversations are face-to-face, and the aft standing rower can keep the course and watch the bottom in thin waters. This kind of rowing can be pleasant enough depending on the conversation and weather conditions. It is the type of rowing that could go on all day if necessary with the rowers switching positions to work the two different muscle groups of standing/pushing and sitting/pulling. The Caledonia Yawl can sail on a hint of a breeze so the need to row her should be fairly rare. I carry a four horse motor that mounts midship because it pushes the boat very nicely at half throttle and I'm lazy but it's nice to know I have three sets of oarlocks (two standard, one extra tall) and two sets of oars just in case we need them.

http://ford.physics.fsu.edu/Birdrack.jpg

[ShagRock]

James asked:
do you see yourself sailing mostly
a) always with active, participatory crew
b) sometimes with active crew, sometimes with just passengers
c)singlehanded or with unreliable crewHere's my answers:
a) occasionally alone, but close to shore. No channel crossing without the minimum of one experienced crew aboard. In any case, boat size will be limited to taking 4 adults.
b) yes to the first part, no to the second. If I take passengers, their safety becomes the 'paramount' concern. If something happens to you, what happens to them?! I never take passengers without one of them being an experienced hand.
c) yes occasionally to the first part, and no to the second. A crew member must be reliable, otherwise you can't count them as crew! This applies to crew who are prone to imbibe too much of that Navy grog! On land - well that's another story!:)

Kenjamin - very nice boat!! I like the placement of the motor well for your 4hp outboard. Just curious as if you have any built in flotation and if you don't where you might place it if you added it to a finished boat. You make an a great point re rowing with two crew. I've also done this with the aft man on a "traditional sculling oar" out the stern and the second on a single regular oar.

[kenjamin]

Howdy Shagrock,

I carry about ten of these:

http://ford.physics.fsu.edu/X-jugs.jpg

I tie them under seats and some in the midship compartment next to my cooler. They give me about 450 lbs of extra flotation because I refuse to be at the mercy of sharks (which have none). I like the jugs because they are heavy duty & light, have a good strong handle for securing them, ballast adjustment can be made by filling one or two, and one can be cut down for two bailing buckets if need be. They take up a lot of space but they are very versatile in where you can put them. Not crazy about the color but haven't gotten around to covering them yet. They are about $7 each at discount stores like Wal-mart.

[bloggs68]

What about a CY or similar for singlehanded rowing but not in our conventional western manner. What about a yuloh? The guys/old ladies who row with one of these do it for hours on end with bigger craft than our small daysailers.

just a thought

AD

[Come By Chance]

Hey Shagrock I've kayaked those shores for many years as I've lived in Sunnyside and Clarenville, but presently am living in the Pearl. Sailing the Philippines sounds pretty nice, I'm thinking about Baja in the distant future.

I've paddled around the water of Newfoundland extensively in kayak with like minded buddies for many years. What I want now is a a way to get my Wife or other family members out on the waters with me in a more comfortable and safer means for them than a kayak.

Thanks James on your comments of rowing abilities of different designs. I'm looking for a small adventurous sail boat for week long trips on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it has to rowable sometimes such as in harbour . There is usually plenty of wind here. In those few time that it is flat calm and miles have to be covered a very small outboard will have to do, though I would prefer to row for the joy of it.

Craic, love your boats and figured it was you. I've seen many pics of your boats. I'm considering a Storm 17 kit as a first boatbulding project due to my absence of boatbuilding skills, although I love the Bayraider with its removeable ballast. I want a kit due to lack of reasonable materials in my location.

Great info here!!

[ShagRock]

Kenjamin - the use of the jerry cans is certainly an innovative and inexpensive way of adding flotation to an open boat! I've seen others use recyclable PET bottles in netting (to keep down the noisy rattling) and place in chambers in lieu of expandable foam. By the way, what design model is your boat? A glance at the bow suggestes it was built via plywood on stringer method? Is that the case and if so did you use any ribs or bulkheads at all, or are the seats just keeled in to strenghten the hull cross wise?

AD - You mention the 'yuloh' which is a Chinese invention differing in design from the western sculling oar. The ones in Newfoundland (most sailors still carry one on board) have the unique 'thole pin in the handle' design. European ships brought small boats varying in size from 14 to 50 feet; the smaller of which were used to go ashore, to ferry fishermen or sailors from vessel to vessel, to help navigate the larger vessel in inshore waters, and to fish in shallower waters. They had many sizes and uses with names like pinnace, jollyboat, skerry, barge, longboat, wherry, shallop, skiff, launch, yawl, cutter, and the Newfie punt.

Given the discussion above on sail and row designs, is anyone familiar with the Drascombe designs particularly the Lugger, Longboat, and Coastal Cruiser models? It's interesting how different design types evolved in different parts of the British Isles. Where might these boats fit into what's been talked about so far in this thread?

Here's a link to these boats with lots of pictures of individual and group outings.

http://www.drascombe-association.org.uk/ralpics.htm

[Ray Frechette Jr]

OK, I forgot about this thread untill it was broought back to remembrance to me.

As to thoughts of higher HP motor on a CS, I wouldn't. 2 hp would be sufficient and I certtainly wouldn't bother with more than 4, Unless I already had a 6 and didn't want to buy a new one. More HP is not going to get the boat to plane under motor.

2 will puch the boat along nicely unless trying to motor in a strong headwind.

As to the contention the boat is a dog under oars... Balderdash!

I grant it is not a performance rower, for that you want a whitehall or some such, but oar as auxillary is a very reasonable alternative. I have no motor on my Cpersonal CS 20 and the boat has never had a motor clamped to her. In fact all I have for auxillary are two 4 foot canoe paddles for close handling work getting to and from dock. The boat is such an awesome light air sailor, I have never bothered fitting oars to it as yet, Though it is on my to do list.

With the Mizzen Staysail I can get 2 knts of boat speed in 3 knts of wind.

Granted there are days or moments of dead calm where no amount of sail will move you.
In the 05 Everglades Challenge race graham Byrnes was within view of the Norseboat with both becalmed. For hours on end both boats were being propelled by oar alone. The Norseboat did not have that much of an advantage even with it's much vaunted superior rowing hull form.

No noticeable gains were made over the CoreSound over several hrs. Now at a propelled boat speed of 3 knts rowing, over 4 hrs that would be 12 miles made good. Granted that was with 2 people rowing, each having one oar. But certainly within the realm of using oar alone for auxillary. One person can easily maintain 2.5 knts solo rowing, and 2 people can maintain 3 knts each on one oar.

Not going to be as fun easy or exhilarating as say my 14 foot Chamberlain Dory Skiff, but quite respectable and reasonable for sole auxillary.

As a further note, Once the wind did pick up a wee bit the Norseboat raised sail and proceeded to row sail. The CS raised sail and pulled away form the Norseboat while under sail alone.

What do you prefere? Row sailing or sailing????

[Ray Frechette Jr]

Oh Yeah, forgot to opine about floatation,
CoreSound's full length longitudinal side seats provide an abundance of floatation. Going form Bulkhead to Bulkhead it prevents downflooding into the cockpit. If caposized there is enough floatation in each side seat to float the hull out of the water even burdened for an expedition with nearly 1000 lbs of gear. The water is between the hull side and the seat top. Once righted there is only about 5-6 inches of water in the footwell.

each side seat is further divided into two distinct floatation chambers as well there is a forward floation chamber in the forepeak and a 6th one inthe aft seat or aft deck area.

Excellent floatation and stowage areas throughout.

Pathfinder as well has a very nice and ample floatation areas with the raised sleeping platform a, rear seats and forward and aft compartments.

If I were building one for myself though I would coout giving up the forward raised sleeping platform for continuing the side seats all the way forward and laying floorboards across for sleeping. I might not opt for that option, but I sure would give it some thought.

[James McMullen]

Ray, you're starting to sound an awful lot like a partisan, dismissing legitimate comparisons with other boats with an airy "my boat sails so well I don't hardly need oars."


I grant it is not a performance rower. . .

Of course not! Especially not in a tide rip or surf landing. What 6' wide, hard-chined boat is? If it is a good enough rower for your own purposes that's great, but don't deceive yourself or others that it is as good a rowboat as many other designs.


The Norseboat did not have that much of an advantage. . . .

. . .and yet it did have some advantage under oars, as you admit. Now I'm not a particular fan of the Norseboat myself--other than loving the fact that another sail & oar type boat is being agressively marketed to the public right now--but the one chance I've gotten to row and sail against a Norseboat my own boat was faster under both oars and sail too. . . .and my boat's got a couple feet longer waterline too. . .and gee, I wonder if waterline length has some relationship to hull speed or something?


. . . .all I have for auxillary are two 4 foot canoe paddles for close handling work getting to and from dock.

Then what are you doing lecturing those of us who actually row for miles and miles for pleasure? As someone who regularly goes on multi-day, motor-free cruises in an area with big tidal currents and fickle summertime winds, I say you're certainly not satisfying my concerns about rowing performance. I've built and owned quite a few different boats myself as I've narrowed down my requirements and preferences towards my current 19 1/2' long x 5' beam sail & oar boat. I also own a 16'7" long 6' beam Oughtred Fulmar planing dinghy which has for auxillary two 4 foot canoe paddles for close handling work getting to and from dock. I don't use these two diffferent boats to do the same things. If I were to camp cruise in that planing dinghy, I'd need to go buy a Honda 2hp to clamp to the transom to be safe in my waters. In fact, I think I'm going to put that Fulmar up for sale this spring as it is not as versatile a boat, and I've got another full-size cruising sailboat to take care of as well.

Ray, don't get me wrong. The Core Sound series are fine boats of their type, but like all boats they are a series of compromises. These are sailboats that you can get by with on oars for a short while, especially if you've got athletic crew, one man to an oar. I've only gotten to see one Core Sound up close so far, and her owner was new to her and didn't show her off to her best advantage, I think. I'd love to see one competently handled to try my Rowan against head to head some day. I suspect that the Core Sound might do better in some conditions, but I know that my boat will do better in others because my boat is a series of compromises too.

[kenjamin]

Shagrock,

My boat is a heavily modified Caledonia Yawl with an experimental rig that got the blessings of the boat's designer before execution of the changes to the rig. I am a fisherman who needed a large live well which in turn allowed for mounting a stronger than typical motor midship. The large midship motor well has its own bulkheads which are not in the plans of a Caledonia Yawl. The longitudinal stringers are also not in the plans but I added them to have strong points for mounting the flotation jugs, rod holders, and drink racks. The experimental birdwing mast for my boat stores completely out of the way of my rather vocal fishing buddy and I like having it on board in case the motor fails. We would still have to row to the beach to step the mast but most of our fishing in done near shore although far down the coast where the better quality grass beds are found. If you study the picture I posted of my 4 HP mounted midship, you can see my fishing buddy's right hand resting on the stored birdwing mast. Here is my favorite picture of Xena sailing:

http://ford.physics.fsu.edu/Xena078.jpg

You would be hard pressed to find a more seaworthy 20' open sailboat than the Caledonia Yawl.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

[QUOTE=James McMullen;2095285]Ray, you're starting to sound an awful lot like a partisan, dismissing legitimate comparisons with other boats with an airy "my boat sails so well I don't hardly need oars."


NO, rather I was contesting your statement that to venture many miles off shore in a CoreSound a motor is a necessity.
. .

Hardly. As has been proven tiime and again in numerous Everglades Challenge races. Several Coresounds have finsihesd th4e nearly 300 mile race and not one with a motor.

Just countering misleading statements.

Iti si not what I would advertise to anyone a performance rower. Iwould however state that it is very reasonable to have oras as your sole auxillary propulsion.

If you want a performance rower you would be better suited elsewhere, however what little it gives up at the lower end of the speed spectrum it more than makes up for with 12 knt planing performance when the wind kicks up a bit.

12 miles off shore in 25 knts of wind with full sale and coasting along at 12 knts boat speed for hrs on end documented.






. . .and yet it did have some advantage under oars, as you admit.

Here I think you are wtwisting what I sqaid to suit your own desires. More to the point in context, both boats were in sigfht of each other for hrs. EWssentially no noticeable advantage was enjoyed by the Norseboat under oar alone. And once wind picked up there was noticeable advantage to the CoreSound. Pulling away under sail alone while Norseboat was rowed with sail up.

. .and gee, I wonder if waterline length has some relationship to hull speed or something?


Gee 6 knts boat speed or 12 knts. And thery are both around 17 ft on deck.

You think maybe there is more than justa few incheds diffferent waterline leght at issue here?


Then what are you doing lecturing those of us who actually row for miles and miles for pleasure?

Where exactly did I do that. All I did was call a silly statement proven false that a motor is nearly a necessity on a CoreSOund. No truth to that statement at all! Who is being pendantic?

As someone who regularly goes on multi-day, motor-free cruises in an area with big tidal currents and fickle summertime winds, I say you're certainly not satisfying my concerns about rowing performance.

Fair enough, it is not a row only boat. Never claimed it was.


I don't use these two diffferent boats to do the same things. If I were to camp cruise in that planing dinghy, I'd need to go buy a Honda 2hp to clamp to the transom to be safe in my waters.



I routinely sail in 12 foot tidal fetch waters with currents as well. Plenty of rocks and ledges too here in Maine.
No need for a motor. People have sailed these waters for years without motors. There is more to seamanship than having a motor.

I plan to add a set of 8.5 oars for use when the wind is dead calm. paddling backl with 4 foot canoe paddles would be quite tedious as it only gets me about a knt. While oars can get me a good 2 rowing easily. Yes I know as I have done it on boats I have built for clients even though my personal boat doesn't have it yet.

Now granted your waters are more known for dead calms than Maine waters are and likely that colors your choices. As a safety measure in a dead calm with a strong tidal current between islands I have an anchor to toss out, or better yet if the wind is dying down I avoid such constrictions that increase the tidal flow.,

The CoreSound and the Pathfinder are ntot he be all end all of boats, but they are both capable craft where one can certainly opt to not use a motor and do so safely.

[James McMullen]

Ray, you're partisan. You build Core Sounds to sell. I'm glad that this boat design satisfies you personally and I hope you sell plenty of them. It's not the right boat for me for a variety of reasons, and I really don't think it's as suitable as some other boats for true no-octane cruising in Puget Sound where I live. You've got a good marketing spiel, but please try to be more objective on this design forum and acknowledge the weaknesses as well as the strengths of your 600lb, hard-chine, stitch & glue plywood 6'3" beam cat yawl. The Core Sound has some very good points. . . . . . .and also some less desirable traits that you just breeze over. Every boat is a compilation of compromises, my dear sir. You know this, you mention it on your home page.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

I also market Pathfinder's and Penobscot 17's.

And I build to any design drawn up by a recognized designer.

I have built a Welsford Walkabout for a client, and I built a Chamberlain Dory Skiff for my wife.

I have never stated the CoreSound is the be all end all design. Simply corrected a mistatement that engaging in a voyage of several miles would require a motor.

In light of several CoireSounds competing in the Everglades challenge race of nearly 300 miles and compleating in the front of the pack, that is simply a silly statement.

Graham Byrnes has Also piloted his Everglades challnege 22 a much bigger broader version of a CoreSound concep tin the Texas 200 and has several miles beneath the hull all without any motor. You have anb animous to the concept of planing hulls using oars as auxillary propulsion and have a set concept in your mind as to what is reasonable to use under oar which simply does not line up with reality.

I freely grant and advise clients that these are not dedicated rowing boats. They are however very reasonable boats to have oars as sole auxillary option.

[James McMullen]

Simply corrected a mistatement that engaging in a voyage of several miles would require a motor.

a) You seem to be consistently missing my point. I don't hate Core Sounds.

b) I didn't say that. I said that there are other boats that are better than a Core Sound if you plan on rowing regularly. I also said that in the strong tidal currents and cold waters of my local stomping grounds I would not feel adequately safe singlehanded in a boat as wide and heavy as a Core Sound without a kicker. Why is this? Because. . .

c) I have been cruising, outboard-free, in various different types of sail & oar boat since 1991. I've built and owned no less than eight different sail & oar boats myself, not counting the other dozens of pure rowboats or any of the canoes or kayaks I've built. As someone who has spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours rowing, I have become really critical about performance under oars. Some of the tide rips and currents in my neighborhood would qualify as Class II whitewater. Purposely choosing to venture out with just your own wits and sweat takes a bunch of planning and seamanship, much of which is knowing your own limits and choosing equipment that will give you the best advantage.

d) You've actually built a Welsford Walkabout for a client. . . did you try it out before you delivered it? Did you notice how this sort of dedicated sail & oar boat handled in comparison to the wide-bottomed, hard-chine Core Sound? That's the difference I've been trying to get across!


I built a 14' Chaimberlain dory-skiff once too, way back when. Rigged her with a spritsail and camp cruised from Portland down to the mouth of the Columbia river. That boat wouldn't suit me now either--too small, though it's a fine boat of its type.

[kenjamin]

OK, I've heard enough. I'm going to objectively settle this mess.

Core Sound boats have a nice fun factor because they are straightforward to build and more easily and more controllably plane.

Double enders like James' Rowan are more seaworthy and easier to row (and darn good looking!). They have a more efficient shape of wetted surface at rowing speeds and the pointed stern is much better in a following sea.

Personally, I think you both live too far north and by too cold a water to really enjoy small boats so I have trouble believing either one of you.:D

[Ray Frechette Jr]

James, Your quote;


A Pathfinder, Core Sound or Caledonia Yawl are all boats in which a 20 mile row would be excruciating--these boats are of a shape and beam where an outboard motor is essentially mandatory equipment if you want to get several miles from shore unless you are quite the athlete.

Patently untrue statement and that is my beef. Outboard motor is nowhere near mandatory equipment. It can safely be used with out a motor and can be rowed for hrs on end by a single rower.

Are other boats better rowing? Of course they are. Never stated otherwise, However I do find that as you weigh down boats optimized for rowing, rowing attributes suffer. Weighed down for expedition cruising, they suffer more.

Yes I rowed the Walkabout and in fact it was destined for your home waters.

I respect and admire boats optimized for row cruising as well.

I also have counseled potential clients away form the CoreSound as their stated desires meant it wasn't the best match for them.

And some I advise thatthe only way I iknow for them to reach their stated objectives is to have more than one boat.

However to state that it needs a motor if venturing far from shore is so clearly over the top that it can not be left uncorrected.

And I suspect you don't go rowing against tidal rips or fight 7 knt currents no matter what the row boat.

With proper seamanship and contingency planning several larger sail planing boats can also be used with oars as auxillary propulsion.

G-d love Columbus for venturing forth with out a motor.

[James McMullen]

Okay, Ray, let's not argue any more. I think we were each somewhat misunderstanding each other's thrust, but I am glad that you promote outboard independence and no octane boating. If you are content enough with the Core Sound under oars then that's super. Every boater has his own weighting of preferences.

And I couldn't agree more with the thought that to do it all you need more than one boat! :D

[ShagRock]

Okay, so we got ‘blown off course’ a bit. But some good ‘tack’ in the end from Jim and Ray, prompted by Kenjamin’s peacemaking and we’re back on track. I think it illustrates well that sailors chose a boat for ‘personal reasons’ and can be quite passionate about their likes and dislikes. That’s understandable and quite okay.

Along with information gathered here, I have been adding each boat to a simple spreadsheet using loa, beam, draft, weight, sail area, displacement/load capacity, outboard hp, and build method. For a start, I would say most small boats have many common design features, but each one is still unique in its own way.

By the way, Kenjamin, I like how you handled the interior layout of your boat; designed to fit for a fisherman’s purpose. Your reference to the increased seaworthiness provided by the double-ended yawl is very relevant to crossing the 15 mile channel I mentioned in the initial post.

James earlier noted that “dedicated pulling boats are going to be almost two feet narrower than a Bayraider”. I like slender boats and with some tweaking, the space can be made more accommodating as Kurylko did with the hinged side seat idea. But I suppose if one built a yawl to look more like a double-ended whaler, then it wouldn’t be a yawl anymore, or would it?

I really enjoyed Kurylko’s article on the Alaskan in Boatbuilder’s Magazine. It illustrates in detail the ‘tweaking’ of design features to serve a purpose; such as the rationale behind the extra rake on the bow or the use of a flat versus plank-on-edge keel. I wish some designers provided more information of this nature, so a potential buyer could really appreciate the uniqueness of a design in more depth - the Bay Raider comes to mind in this respect.

Thanks fellows for the great discussion on row/sail versus planing concepts and the relation to beam measure. Personally speaking, I wouldn’t mind having a sculling oar, regular oars, and an outboard on a boat. This gives increased diversity of function and a more interesting boating experience.

I’d like to ask Ray the ‘short answer’ as to what ‘specific hull design feature’ allows the Core Sound to 'top out' at 12knt as you claim, when most of the other boats are rated as 4-6 knt? If the boat really goes this fast, why then do you limit the outboard to the same capacity as the other boats?

Finally, before I forget, I should mention that I'm taking the build method into consideration as one factor in selecting a sailboat. In that regard, can an original design in strip plank be converted to lapstrake or vice versa? What limitations make this option more or less feasible in regard to a particular design?

Cheers:)
ShagRock

[Ray Frechette Jr]

Short answer.. Geesh I can't be held to a short answer...

OK Lets's cover a bit of ground here.

James, If someone in your waters were consulting with me re: A sailboat they didn't want a motor for and nearly all their sailing would be in your home waters I would ask them to consider a boat different than a CoreSound for the ease of rowing.

Simply becuase you guys seem stuck having to do it so often.

I still feel it is perfectly reasonable for a CS or Pathfincder to have oars as sole auxillary, however I don't deny there are other boats better able to be rowed should one be presented with that necessity exceessively often.

While Maine does not suffer form the same light airs that seem to plague your otherwise excellent cruising grounds, we certainly have more lighter air days than San Francisco Bay.

As to relative seaworthiness of a double ender vs a planing hull such as a CoreSound. Primarily the bennefit of seaworthiness with a double ender is due to the fact a pointy end is exposed to oncoming wavetrain of following seas and a wide transom is deamed more likely to be caught by following seas and broached.

This is something that quite frankly the CoreSound does not seem nearly as troubled by as the double enders in the Everglades Challnenge.

This is becuase the CS is traveling faster than the wave train. Graham was sailing forward under full sail 12 miles off shore in 25 knt winds with wave trains from both the Northeast and a competing train from Northwest. Other displacement craft with narrower sterns and tucked up sterns were wallowing in same condition being greatly overpowered even reefed down. Excess power in sails translates to exess heeling forces in a displacemnt craft and excess speed in a planing hull.

If your traveling faster than the wave train than you need not worry so much about them tossing your stern.

Granted if you suffered a dismasting or rigging failure of course the CS will of course not be traveling faster than wave train. If sufficient sea room exists though either heaving to or deploying a sea anchor might be a reasonable survival effort.

I must say I wouldn't relish a long time out in a doubleender with oars alone either in 25 knt winds.

OK
So why does a CS plane at upwards to 12 knts in wind under sail and not plane witha bigger motor.

It;s hull is optimized for planing under sail and not power is the short answer.

A planing powerboat will have the run go straight aft from its wides t and deepest spot with an abrupt drop off at the stern with no rocker.

This would hurt both sailing and rowing performance. The CS while having a large afterplacne section does indeed have some slight narrowing aft and definitely has rocker aft. When loaded down with cruising gear and one person sitting in thwart seat prepared to row the transom is largley out ofthe water with only a bit of the keel area submerged. This helps in both rowing and sailing in displacemnt mode.

Under press of sail with the rig powered up the wave wave train moves aft till the stern is subme4ged and the boat is able to rise up and over. Bear in mind though that the center of effort of the sail rig is substantially more forward of where it is with a motor.

With a large motor on the transom pushing the boat the stern squats down and it is stuck in displacement mode.

Graham's predecosr tot eh CS series was the Bay River skiff and for those who wanted to power plane he redesigned that hull as the Bay river runner which is a power planing hull.

As you gain in one area, other performance variables necessarily suffer.

Yes, same with rowing vs sailing. Grahams philosophy on the rowing vs sailing attributes on the CS is a glad tradeoff of a knt or two of rowing sped to gain an additional 6 knts of sailing potential.

He did want to keep the potential of rowing as sole auxillary and witha sustained rowing speed of 2.5 knts comfortably I feel it is acceptable. I would doubt there are many rowing cruiser boats with a sustained rowing speed potential comfortable rowing of much more than 4.5 knts.

Personally I would prefere to sail 2 knts in 3 kntrs of wind then row 4 knts in 3 knts of wind. To a certain point I guess that makes me lazy or indolent.

To date I have never had to paddle more than a few 100 yds ever in my CS 20 and have never sought a tow to get home. There was one tiume I thought I would have to, but a fair breeze on a beam reach between 2-3 knts variable brought me home in the 1.5-2.5 boat speed range.

Unlike some sailors I like light air sailing. I find it quite relaxing where others get twitchy and in a hurry. It is all personal preference however and I must admit to enjoying pounding through the wave trains when I have my foulies on too in 20 knt plus winds also.

[Woxbox]

Unlike some sailors I like light air sailing. I find it quite relaxing where others get twitchy and in a hurry.


Amen. It's all about being there, not getting somewhere else.

[Craic]

Amen. It's all about being there, not getting somewhere else.

Who needs a proper boat then? For being there all you need is a raft and an anchor. Enjoy.

[paladin]

O.K. Some fine argument s for and against almost everything......if you want a boat simple to build, economical to operate or repair, sail it anywhere, maybe around the world etc, build a great Pelican....easy on the purse, can row it when neccesary, if you must have an engine buy 2 each 2 hp models and stash one, carry an extra sail, it only uses one and it's cheap...the boat is trailerable if that's what you want.....

[kenjamin]

More Great Pelicans are not built because they are not sexy "chick magnets" like the Caledonia Yawl. You should have seen all the good looking women who were standing behind the photographer when this picture was taken!!!

http://ford.physics.fsu.edu/Xena1115.jpg

Seriously though, a good 4HP fourstroke with a remote tank would be a much better choice for a Great Pelican. I don't think you can find any 2HP motors with a remote tank. Someday, I still want to build Captain Short's Yangtze Pelican in wood just because I think it would be a great boat and no one has ever done it before. Mrs. Short was kind enough to send me a color print of the Yangtze from that famous book on Chinese Junks (sorry I'd have to leave work and go home to give you the correct title but you probably know the one I'm talking about). I stare at that picture of the Yangtze often and dream away. Fair winds.

[slidercat]

Unlike some sailors I like light air sailing. I find it quite relaxing where others get twitchy and in a hurry.

To be fair, one reason a lot of sailors don't like light-air sailing is that they have boats that don't sail very well when the wind is light. Ghosting is a lot more fun when you sail a boat that can ghost.

http://slidercat.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/slider1/ripple_0.jpg

Slider is the first serious sailboat I've ever owned that doesn't have some sort of engine, and I have to say that sailing without an engine has been a revelation, as well as a joy.

There can be inconveniences, and a boat with an engine probably is a little safer than an engineless boat, but staying home is safer yet.

One of the best descriptions of the pleasures of cruising in small engineless boats can be found in Charles Stock's writings:

http://shoal-waters.moonfruit.com/

Last fall, my wife and I went out for a little late-season fishing, and because the winds were light, didn't make it out into the Gulf until later in the afternoon. We fished a little, and got back inside the bay just as the sun was setting. We still had 7 miles to go to get home, and the wind fell to just a breath. We sailed on, rarely doing more than two knots and often less than one, and it was a great night, the sky moonless and starry over the bay, porpoises fishing all around us, the water whispering past the bows.

That's an experience we wouldn't have had if we'd had an engine.

[phil_mclean]

"I've looked into various design plans for a 14' to 18' small sailboat that will take a 10 hp outboard - to use for coastal cruising and island hopping. I prefer an open deck design and one that can take some rough sea. Does anyone have opinions to offer on which of these boats or other designs in this general range are most seaworthy eg. say to venture across a 15 mile channel in choppy seas? I know this is a bit broad, but I need some assistance in narrowing down the choices."

I think the NorseBoat is a nice fit for these parameters. My bias is that I own one, have enjoyed it for two years sailing on the Chesapeake Bay, often rowing, and occasionally in stiff breezes (isn't that the BEST day?)

First.. stability. The Jersey shore lifeboat hull type means that there is initial heeling followed by greater stability. Paired with the carbon fiber mast means fewer scary moments, and softer recovery during a puff. It is a fairly light boat, which does put a premium on weight placement... forward and used to balance the boat, react to puffs. This is as competent as I can ask my 'crew' to be on a continuous basis. In waves, the boat is forgiving on various points of sail... nice high bow, lapstrakes and a decent dodger makes for relatively dry sailing. My near-novice wife and five year old were fine during 16-20 mph winds, three to four foot waves on a passage from Sandy Pt to Rock Hall (about 15 miles).

Second, it is within your size range, is an open deck design, with nice provision for camping, especially the boards which fit across the seats to create a broad, 7 foot sleeping platform. I think a smaller engine would place less weight at the stern, though. I've had four adults comfortably in the cockpit.

Some notes about rowing... I rowed across the Ches. Bay last year on Labor day... no wind and big power boat waves. My wife sat in the stern, steering "Longboat" style (under the dodger) and I rowed 6 mi to Annapolis in about three hours. Not working hard, no major strains or aches that night, and I am not a frequent rower.

Some planned changes for the Norseboat include a "Torquedo" motor mount within the rudder, with the drive unit removable and the battery pack mounted up by the centerboard. Mounting "Little River" rowing seats from the centerboard trunk to the aft cockpit (there are no foot braces currently, let alone a sliding seat). Finally, a hinged mast consisting of an aluminum bottom section, sealed to the deck, with a "knuckle" allowing the mast to rest on the dodger aft.

Perhaps most interestingly, they are planning a "school" at the Lunenburg facility, allowing students to build their kit in a week for about $10K.

Phil M

[ShagRock]

Hi Phil - thanks for reference to the NorseBoat. Lunnenberg is 'across the pond' from the neck of the woods I grew up up in. Surely an interesting design. This is a shot of the Norseboat Explorer 17.5. Nice lines!
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo187/Bayman_bucket/SAILBOATS/NorseBoat175.jpg

[kenjamin]

Hey ShagRock,

I saw a Norseboat at the '07 WoodenBoat Show at Mystic Seaport and it is an extremely well thought out design. What is especially nice about it is the little bits and pieces of accessories like the dodger, the bimini, and the one I saw even had a full cockpit tent. However, forget about a ten horse motor for this boat (with its smallish transom it needs a 2HP or a 3) and make sure you've saved up your money if you go that route because it is a pricey way to go. It is a fine boat, though.

http://ford.physics.fsu.edu/Motor.jpg

[ShagRock]

Kenjamin - By the way, that's a lovely picture of your Caledonia on the trailer. Superb job with the finish and color matches! Of course, I can't say if the ladies you mention could have improved the picture...hehe! And yes, the Norseboat is rather pricey. Following on topic, here is a shot of one of the Drascombe designs. I'm not positive, but this one may have been designed by East/West boats out of Maine. Similar in some ways to the Norseboat.
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo187/Bayman_bucket/SAILBOATS/Annie-aDrascombedesign.jpg

[kenjamin]

I've never seen one of those before (green boat). It kind of reminds me of a West Wright Potter 15. If you like that boat, check out Jacques Mertens Adelie 16 at Bateau.com

As for my boat, Xena, I'll be covering up that beautiful mahogany grain pretty soon but it's just as well because to tell you the truth, some of my splices were near criminal in their execution and I can't wait to cover them up with fairing and paint.

Enjoy your design selection process. It's got to be the cheapest and most fun part about building a boat. I love my Caledonia Yawl but I'm already wanting to build a catamaran of my own design.

[matoi]

A Penobscot, Alaska, Ness Yawl, a Newfoundland Trap Skiff, or my own beloved Rowan are all true sail & oar boats, ones that you would not be miserable rowing 20 miles in a day in when the wind is absent.

As an enginless dinghy cruising fan and newbie, I found this thread very interesting. Until now I have only sailed and rowed a Ian Proctor's Wayfarer:

LOA 4.8m / 15ft
Beam 1.8m / 6ft
Hull weight 170kg / 370lb
+ 2 persons
+ cca 120kg equipment

I used 9.5ft long oars and the longest leg I rowed was only 2.5 Nm. The handheld GPS measured:

average speed over ground 2.2 kt (the sea was calm)
and it took me about 1000 strokes
It wasn't extremely difficult, but as you can see it was relatively slow and I was happy that I didn't need to row a longer distance (at the end of a whole days' sail).

As I'm not familiar with any boats other than a Wayfarer, I would appreciate if James or anyone with a wider experience could explain a bit more...

Are you saying that rowing in one of those boats (Penobscot, Alaska, Ness Yawl...) would be considerably easier than in a Wayfarer (but considering only boats loaded with camping and sailing gear)?

What are generally the parameters by which you can detect if a boat will be easy or difficult for rowing?

Is it really possible for an average person to row for 20 Nm in a 2 person sailboat with about 100kg of extra gear (currently I would find even 8 or 10 Nm fantastic) ?

Would you expect such boats to have lesser sailing abilities because they are better suited for rowing, and if so - in what way?

Thank you + best wishes to everyone,

m

P.S. My 'first dinghy cruising steps' are online if anyone would find that amusing:
http://sites.google.com/site/sailpinchika

[James McMullen]

. . . .are you saying that rowing in one of those boats (Penobscot, Alaska, Ness Yawl...) would be considerably easier than in a Wayfarer (but considering only boats loaded with camping and sailing gear)?

Yes.

When you are limited to the power of your own muscles, even a little bit of help makes a big difference when you are talking about thousands of strokes and hours of rowing. A foot less beam makes a difference. A displacement hull form rather than a planing hull form makes a difference. Rowing with the windage of a big mast sticking up in the air makes a noticeable difference even in a dead calm. A rig that you can easily raise or strike in a minute or two versus a stayed rig with shrouds to set up and jibsheets to untangle that takes 10 or 15 minutes means a great deal. When you add up all of these factors and multiply them by a dozen miles or more it can make the difference between having any fun or not.



Is it really possible for an average person to row for 20 Nm in a 2 person sailboat with about 100kg of extra gear (currently I would find even 8 or 10 Nm fantastic) ?

You betcha! Living where I do, I've rowed plenty in the summer months, though I prefer to sail when I can. Here: 67 miles in four days under sail & oar (http://www.mavc2002.com/cyforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=610)


Would you expect such boats to have lesser sailing abilities because they are better suited for rowing, and if so - in what way?

You will need to sail them differently than an out and out sailboat. Because they are narrower, you will need to reef earlier and be a little more conservative. Because the hulls are so easily driven, you may actually have an advantage in light winds and ghosting. But when the wind really kicks up, a dedicated sailboat will have a higher top speed potential. Every boat is a compromise.



What are generally the parameters by which you can detect if a boat will be easy or difficult for rowing?

If you look at the shapes of boats invented before the outboard motor was spawned, you will see a very similar set of proportions being favored, whether it is a dory, a whitehall, a faering, a peapod, a sampan, an umiak. . . . Generally, 2 man sail and oar boats range about 16-19 feet long and from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 feet wide. Narrower favors rowing at the expense of sailing and wider improves sail carrying at the expense of rowing. Take yer pick.

[matoi]

Thank you very much James! The log of a cruise is very nice! A couple of more questions: did I get it correctly that Rowan is a Caledonian Yawl? And, approximately how heavy is her centerboard?

Best wishes, m

[James McMullen]

Rowan is not a Caledonia Yawl. She is much more similar to a Ness Yawl.

Her centerboard is unballasted--almost neutral buoyancy. Heavy steel centerboards, though they may have a place on some trailerable sailboats, are not a very good option for beachable sail & oar boats.
See this discussion here (http://www.mavc2002.com/cyforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=618) for more commentary on this topic.

[matoi]

Thanks! I totally agree, it's just that in my sailing area beaching is rarely possible due to rocky shoreline. All the best, m

[Rational Root]

I am sailing a waterballasted boat for some years now, I am still alive BTW, and I find it curious how each and every discussion about waterballast turns theoretical immediately.

Because, what counts is the practice.
There waterballast works like a dream. No other form of ballast can give you two totally different character boats rolled into a single one. I have a lightweight planing dinghy with the ballast out, and a shallow water self righting 125 degrees AVS boat three minutes later, and a lightweight planing dinghy 5 minutes later again, all at the flip of three selfbailers.
Show me anyone any other ballast material that can do that.

AND there's a great lot of ballast water on this planet, AND it's completely free of charge. AND it's ideal not to have it when the boat sits on it's trailer.

Forget the theories, get practical.


I presume you are the owner of a Bay Raider that goes by the name "Craic".

This would be one of her sister ships, "Spark", sadly not mine :rolleyes:, I'm the one in the blue shirt, that's my eldest in the front.

I have to say, I'd be inclined to go with the advice of someone who actually sails a water ballasted boat here.

The only way a Lead ballast is different from water in action is if you put the lead way down deep on a keel. http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/8/c/d8ce4f4a6548d3623ffe13a4eaf58d85.png That's just not going to happen on a 14-18 foot trailer sailer.

Yes the water does take up more space, but hey, in a boat, everything is a compromise.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_-jLgHzfXWAU/SFA8JQKsucI/AAAAAAAAAWs/evjf8VevSgk/s800/_IGP0623.jpg

Ps See you at beale park this year ?

[Craic]

I presume you are the owner of a Bay Raider that goes by the name "Craic".

Close. My SeaRaider is 'Craic'. My BayRaider is 'Llafurio'.
I am totally nuts about water ballast daysailers and gaelic boatnames.

No Beale Park Show for me this year, we are in the Velalonga Raid in Venice at that time.
Enjoy Beale. Swallowboats will have their waterballasted BayCruiser No. 1 there.