"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:01:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 2:49 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't
because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It
takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts,
cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water.

Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space.
Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet
of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the
magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a
voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day-
sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more
size offshore. But, YMMV big time.

-- Tom.



I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and
several
overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to
make
single-handing a breeze in most conditions.


My point exactly. But you don;t have two year's supply of engine
spares, a spare propeller, a complete set of mechanics tools, a fair
sized chest of carpenter's tools and all the other bits and pieces
that you "might need" if it breaks in PagoPago, or some other remote
place.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)


At least not on the boat!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041422092150878-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-14 17:01:58 -0400, "Capt. JG" said:

I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and
several
overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to
make
single-handing a breeze in most conditions.

Pat and I find our 28' comfortable for about a month at a time, our max
cruise so far. Pat thinks Xan's satisfactory for 2-3 months at a clip, but
time will tell.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



I have yet to do anything approaching that on my Sabre. Too much going on
with teaching and other non-sailing activities. At some point, I'd like to
take a more extended trip. I would not hesitate to take her to Mexico (as
far as reliability goes), but would probably not do more than coastal cruise
to get there vs. non-stop or similar.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:45:07 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-04-14 13:27:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much
diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their
prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be
taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to
deny reality.

But to assert that they are incapable is to deny reality as well.

It's not an either-or, but a "both" solution. My wife can't manhandle
systems on our boat the way I do. She needs winch handles, for
instance, and couldn't easily haul our current anchor and chain by
hand. She's a little girl and never had that sort of strength.

But she can handle a properly set-up 46' cat as easily as our pocket
cruiser once she learns the systems.

All it takes is adapting your systems and techniques to the available skills.

Sometimes the system needed *is* a smaller boat. We have a few people
on our docks who aren't old or particularly incapable, but don't go out
single-handed. They should have smaller boats. (Some got sailing dinks
for knocking around.)

Jere I know a couple sailing a 65 foot sloop. Just the two of them. He
is a retired scientist, I'd guess about 70, and she is a few years
younger. I met them in Phuket and they were on the way to the Med and
then back to the east Coast. No crew, just them.

The boat in the next slip to me is a fifty foot sloop and the couple
that own it sailed it from Seattle.

I knew a chap that was 80, he decided to go to America. Sailed north,
alone, to Japan and turned right. The last I heard from him he had
made Midway Island and the US Navy had a party for him.

Even square riggers with their large crews weren't adverse to making
things easier. There was a "patented" topsail that could be reefed in
two sections. The last of the cargo schooners carrying lumber from
Maine to New York sailed with amazingly small crews by using a
gasoline engine powered windlass to haul the lines.

I can probably go on but the point isn't age it is rigging the boat so
that YOU, or YOURS, can sail it. The much maligned Tristan Jones
sailed a boat with no legs at all.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:47:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 14, 3:19 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
I've been aboard some of those 35 ft. cruising boats that have been
sailing for several years. The ones that entertain guests in the
cockpit because there isn;t room down below for four people to sit
down.

Well our experience here differs. I've enjoyed a good number of
dinners served below by cruising couples in their 30 something foot
boats. Some on small 30 something boats. We sat six to dinner one
night in Tonga on a 32 foot boat cruised by a couple. Four of us had
dinner below on a 25' Pacific Seacraft that was half way between
Hawaii and Oz with a couple aboard... I've got two sets of
particularly dear friends who've fed us many times in their 36 and 37
foot boats and both pairs of them have been cruising very seriously
for over 20 years. One of them is a professional boat builder and a
talented sculptor and he keeps an extraordinarily complete set of
tools and spares and there's still plenty of room below. Two folks
can live and cruise full time on a moderate displacement monohull of
35 feet in some comfort (eg. with a computer, tv, books &c) and still
have a place to entertain below, stow a few grand-kids for the
occasional week or two and carry a lot of spares. If you absolutely
refuse to ever take anything off the boat you'll eventually be
entertaining on deck no matter how big your boat is.

Of course, bigger boats can carry more, are generally faster, safer
and more comfortable at sea, have more privacy, berths that are kinder
to old backs and so on. The trade offs are that they're more
expensive to keep, and either harder to work or more complex... So,
there's an engineering compromise that juggles money, crew strength,
tech ability and so on. There are also many aesthetic questions. For
instance, I think its good for people to live on boat that gives them
a buzz to behold. Some folks want to live with a Zen like simplicity
and others want to be reminded of oak and tar... One size does not
fit all. But, IMO, all things considered, 36 isn't a bad number.

By the way, Pago is civilization. Heck Apia is civilization. They
have currier service, hardware stores, engineering shops, you name
it. I've had a broken boat in Apia.

-- Tom.

The boat before this one was a 35 footer and I was quite happy on it.
My wife somewhat less so. She is a dedicated cook and she felt that
the two burner kerosine stove was: (1) an antique, (2) hard to light,
(3) the heat was hard to control, (4) prone to get stopped up midway
through preparing a meal, and (5) would be far better on the bottom of
the ocean.

Well, I sold the boat and got a forty footer with a gas stove. The
galley is better but could have been bigger.

I don't remember what I wrote about PagoPago or Perth, but the
meaning was somewhere that you can't get whatever it is that you want.

I've been on those 35 foot boats that actually look bare down below.
I've also been on 50 footers that you can't get into the forward
compartment. Some people have more discipline then others.

But as I originally said cruising means different things to different
folks. For some people a week trip to Bangor is a cruise to others a
bi-annual none stop trip from Phuket to Australia is cruising. Or the
three week sail to India that a mate just made. Or a two week trip up
th Malacca Straits.

I don't believe that there is a correct definition of "cruising" so no
correct definition of a "cruising boat".



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:53:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041422261877923-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-14 19:58:04 -0400, Bloody Horvath said:

35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand.
If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out.

My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor.

Don't forget the chain. We are a size (or maybe two) big on 30' of chain,
so have an additional 30# to haul up. Mud can weigh a bit, too.

I just imagine most 5'2" 125# women trying to haul that by hand.

Yeah, we can lighten our anchor & chain, but would first get a windlass,
as we sleep better with what we have mounted.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



Jere... he doesn't actually sail and he certainly has never had to deal with
an anchor/chain combo. 30 feet of chain ain't nuthin if you have a all-chain
rode.

Try 200 ft. of chain.......
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:29:25 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

Try 200 ft. of chain.......

With a 120 lb anchor and a 100 lb mud ball. Even the windlass grunts.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:01:40 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:29:25 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

Try 200 ft. of chain.......

With a 120 lb anchor and a 100 lb mud ball. Even the windlass grunts.

On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
to rig a snubber every night.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:08:51 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
to rig a snubber every night.

That will certainly work but all chain has its advantages also:

- less scope required for average conditions

- resulting smaller swing radius

- almost no chance of being cut by an errant prop on an other boat

Nylon also loses a great deal of its original strength when it is wet,
abraded, or as it ages. I regard rigging a snubber as an advantage
because it off-loads the bow pulpit and lowers the effective freeboard
height.

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
I agree with all of the above. I recall traying to anchor in ten feet of
water, a sand bottom and a strong current with a Fortress. Took 300 feet
of rode before it would bite. Our primary is a Delta 35. Never fails.
Backup is a Fortress 23 and also a lunch hook a Fortress 11. The 11 will
hold the boat very well if it sets.

Yes, of course it will. But to drop anchor and hold your breath to see if
it will set is no way to go even for a lunch hook

On Apr 14, 7:30 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
I don't believe that there is a correct definition of "cruising" so no
correct definition of a "cruising boat".

Amen.

-- Tom.