Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel
capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF
difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be
a lot more.

on a short voyage, you turn on the motor when boatspeed goes below your
chosen figure. on a long passage, you might find yourself sailing in awind
that you otherwise might motor in.

jeff

Paul L wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Wayne.B wrote:

The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot.
That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too
much about it for cruising.

Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward
performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference.

BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is
that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference
of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant?
Prob'ly not to most cruisers.

Or about one full day on a 2,000 mile transpacific hop.

Paul
www.jcruiser.org

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan
wrote:
the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel
capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF
difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be
a lot more.
======================================

Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance,
once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance
goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a
slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might
as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so. It's
important to note that motorsailing is usually done at low engine revs
and is fairly fuel efficient. If you're range limited however you
don't have much choice except waiting fot the wind to cooperate.

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan
wrote:
the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel
capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF
difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could
be
a lot more.
======================================

Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance,
once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance
goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a
slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might
as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so. It's
important to note that motorsailing is usually done at low engine revs
and is fairly fuel efficient. If you're range limited however you
don't have much choice except waiting fot the wind to cooperate.

One of the dirty little secrets of long-distance cruising, among others, is
that they spend more time under power than you might think. Of course, some
of it is just taking advantage of the time spent recharging batteries, might
as well get some extra speed out of that time.
John Cairns

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

Most long distance cruising boats are poor sailing performers, requiring
lots of wind to make them move. If they were better performers then they
would probably be sailed a lot more often rather than motored so much.

Paul
www.jcruiser.org
"jeff feehan" wrote in message
ink.net...
the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel
capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF
difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could
be
a lot more.

on a short voyage, you turn on the motor when boatspeed goes below your
chosen figure. on a long passage, you might find yourself sailing in awind
that you otherwise might motor in.

jeff

Paul L wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Wayne.B wrote:

The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot.
That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too
much about it for cruising.

Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward
performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference.

BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is
that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference
of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant?
Prob'ly not to most cruisers.

Or about one full day on a 2,000 mile transpacific hop.

Paul
www.jcruiser.org

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan
wrote:

Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance,
once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance
goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a
slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might
as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so.

I have a different take on this. I race on a moderately heavy 42'er
(24k lbs ~11k kg). I have been on this boat both when she was
loaded down for a trip around South America and also racing light.
She sails really well in all conditions no matter what her load. I think
the big thing here is that she has plenty of sail area to keep her moving
(SA/D is around 20).

I have also seen boats like an ultralight Olson 40 loaded down with a
couple thousand pounds of crew and they still go upwind and down
like a scalded cat. Of course, in cruising mode they won't go
upwind quite as well unless you want to move the Dinty Moore
to the windward rail at each tack. But downwind and reaching
they'll still be fast. Slower than if she was not burdened with
a bunch of extra weight, but it will still walk away from the
Baba 40, with a lot less effort to boot.

If you take a light boat and don't give her enough sail power, then when
you load her down she may fall into the poor performance range.

Personally, I think one of the reasons people don't sail in the light
stuff is that their boats don't have enough sail area to keep going
without the hassles of a big overlapping genoa. But if you have a
relatively high SA/D ratio, then when you make all the compromises
for your cruising sails (like a high clew and less overlap) you still have
enough power left over to actually make light air sailing rewarding. But I
also think that if you have a decent performing boat then you're more likely
to pay attention to things like dirty bottoms (and take care of that), and
are less likely to put a three blade prop on the boat. The skipper of the
42'er considered a two blade fixed prop for the trip up the coast from
Califonia to Washington because he thought he might need to motor
against the wind a lot. He never did it though, he's too much of a
sailor at heart and kept the old folding prop on. He couldn't stomach
the half knot hit on the sailing performance.

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

Ok. It sounds like a mid performance boat would be a lot more fun to
sail as well as something that I might actuall sail more often rather
than revert to motoring every where. With that in mind, are there
many boats that are fairly good performers and something that is still
safe enough to cross the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? I've also
noticed that the lighter weight boats usually have smaller tankage and
since there isn't a huge bilge to place the tanks, they are usually
placed under the settees and therefore eat away at the available
storage. Tons of compromises aren't there?

I sure like to find something without blisters, no deck rot, good deck
layout, a U shaped dinette that makes into a double, a settee that
makes a good sea berth, good storage, no teak decks, traveler on the
coach roof, cockpit seats just long enough to sleep on, minimum of 100
gal water & 50 gal fuel, no bowsprit, good galley with good storage
and with the ice box not against the engine compartment, head with
maybe a separate shower, fairly fast and yet safe enough to take
anywhere. ......

Damn, I feel like I'm asking too much!!!

On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:55:06 GMT, (Norm) wrote:

Well I spent last weekend down in Seattle - boat shopping. Initially
my wife and I were looking at boats between 36 and 38' but somehow we
ended up in the 40+ boats and of course we fell in love with one.
After we got home, we figured out how much the thing was going to set
us back including maintenance, needed upgrades, insurance and moorage
and decided against it. The boat was a beautiful Passport 40 but it
was old (1980) and needed a lot of work (wood decks to boot). The
work doesn't bother me as much as the expense in upgrades. Boat was
$120K+ and then add a bunch of other stuff on top just to get it ready
to go to Alaska (+$10k) and we were just out of our affordability
range.

Now we're trying to get refocused and once again looking for a well
built sailboat in the 35-38' range that is capable of offshore
passages, performs fairly well (don't really want a slug) & something
that isn't so old that everything needs to be replaced before
cruising. We can put down $60k and still have another $10k for
extras and getting it back up to Alaska. I don't mind taking out a
little loan if the price is up around 80$ for the boat, but I really
don't want to have to borrow so much that I'm tied to the dock and a
job paying the thing off.

Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the
thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most
people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused.

Any recommendations on what boats to focus on?

Boat shopping - but got off course.
 

Norm:

Get ready for a lot of laughs, jeers, and hee-haws. I have a Westsail 32
that will soon be on the market. It'll get you anywhere you want to go,
comfortably, safely....and slowly.

Skipper Dick




"Norm" wrote in message
...
Well I spent last weekend down in Seattle - boat shopping. Initially
my wife and I were looking at boats between 36 and 38' but somehow we
ended up in the 40+ boats and of course we fell in love with one.
After we got home, we figured out how much the thing was going to set
us back including maintenance, needed upgrades, insurance and moorage
and decided against it. The boat was a beautiful Passport 40 but it
was old (1980) and needed a lot of work (wood decks to boot). The
work doesn't bother me as much as the expense in upgrades. Boat was
$120K+ and then add a bunch of other stuff on top just to get it ready
to go to Alaska (+$10k) and we were just out of our affordability
range.

Now we're trying to get refocused and once again looking for a well
built sailboat in the 35-38' range that is capable of offshore
passages, performs fairly well (don't really want a slug) & something
that isn't so old that everything needs to be replaced before
cruising. We can put down $60k and still have another $10k for
extras and getting it back up to Alaska. I don't mind taking out a
little loan if the price is up around 80$ for the boat, but I really
don't want to have to borrow so much that I'm tied to the dock and a
job paying the thing off.

Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the
thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most
people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused.

Any recommendations on what boats to focus on?