I see this question all the time, is my boat big enough to sail in the ocean, the answer is, are you big enough, Captain William Bligh, sailed almost four thousand miles of pacific ocean, in an open 22 foot boat. Anthony Steward, circumnavigated, in a TLC 19 an open production boat. Little western, a sixteen foot boat, sailed from Glouster, and arrived in cowes england 46 days later, then sailed back to the usa in 65 days. their are a million more, people who have done some amazing things in small boats, so when people ask "is my boat big enough" the answer should be, your boat has been proven to be big enough, but are you big enough?
How small a boat to sail the ocean.
- Thread starter AtlanticAl
- Start date
- Status
As has been said, you could sail the ocean in a bathtub, but I don't think that's what people mean when they pose this question.
I believe the spirit of the question is really "How small a boat to sail the ocean that affords the qualified captain a reasonably good chance of having himself, his crew and his ship survive the journey time after time."
To that could be added '...in relative comfort.', but I think the 'small' part of the question leaves that open to debate.
I believe the spirit of the question is really "How small a boat to sail the ocean that affords the qualified captain a reasonably good chance of having himself, his crew and his ship survive the journey time after time."
To that could be added '...in relative comfort.', but I think the 'small' part of the question leaves that open to debate.
And the answer is usually the same: it depends on the construction of the boat. A Catalina 25 is built completely differently than a Dana 24.
If you want to there are the minitransat 650s - thats about 21 feet. These are raced across the Atlantic.
In the book “My Old man and the Sea” (Harper Perennial) Dan and Dave Hays sailed from Fischer Is, through the Panama Canal, the Galapagos Islands, around Cape Horn and back to Fischer Island on an engineless 25 footer! Size is not so much the issue as is construction, sea worthiness, sailing ability, crew ability/experience, and how much hardship the crew is willing to endure. The bigger issue is how to make the boat as "ocean-proof" as possible. There are an awful lot of boats labeled as "ocean going" that really aren't and should be modified to varying degrees for extended ocean passaging. One of the "tests" is very telling: can you turn the boat upside down and still keep the water out.
Hannes Lindemann did it sailing a 17' Klepper folding Kayak. I had one of these boats for 40 years and sold it a couple of years ago for more than I paid for it new. They are amzing but I sure wouldn't try to cross an ocean in one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Lindemann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Lindemann
For a venture of this nature staying fed, healthy, and hydrated is totally essential. That will require a minimum carrying capacity in any vessel of about 5 pounds per day. It will also require volume that could otherwise be occupied by the traveler. Therefore there are some physical limitations to the size of the vessel. Also as the vessel gets smaller it also becomes slower requiring more time and therefore more life support provisions. There was a venture a few years ago called around in ten. The concept was to sail around the world in a ten foot sail boat. All of the boats were to have a "mother ship" accompanying them all of the way. The idea never made it past some prototype boats and sea trials.
edit to add link: http://bills-log.blogspot.com/2010/04/10-ocean-going-sailboat-designs.html
edit to add link: http://bills-log.blogspot.com/2010/04/10-ocean-going-sailboat-designs.html
All I have to say is Waterline, Waterline, Waterline! Sure you can make a trans-Atlantic crossing in a tiny boat that is equipped right. It will take a long time (you need to figure out how to provision and store these provisions).
Most of the people, when they ask this question, are considering comfort for the crew and skipper. Crew fatigue is a major part of this. There is a balance between having ample places to store provisions, the ability to haul enough water, what electronics you need, etc, etc, etc.
Think of the calculations for hull speed. It is waterline dependent. Longer water line equals more space. More space allows you to have more provisions and gear. At a certain point the more waterline means more crew to handle the large boat. The real question is where are the sweet spots to fall where you have the size crew, the amount of provisions, and necessary equipment to make the journey.
Most of the people, when they ask this question, are considering comfort for the crew and skipper. Crew fatigue is a major part of this. There is a balance between having ample places to store provisions, the ability to haul enough water, what electronics you need, etc, etc, etc.
Think of the calculations for hull speed. It is waterline dependent. Longer water line equals more space. More space allows you to have more provisions and gear. At a certain point the more waterline means more crew to handle the large boat. The real question is where are the sweet spots to fall where you have the size crew, the amount of provisions, and necessary equipment to make the journey.
Waterline length is important but not so much as we might think because it is the square root of the waterline length that is used as a factor. Thus a 36 foot boat has a hull speed of only twice that of a 9 foot boat. Burden can be carried in length, beam, or depth or a combination of all three. Draft can be 4 feet on a fin keel skow or on a flicka. Taliesin is only 29 feet on deck but can carry 230 cubic feet of stores below the waterline.
Ah.......the hull speed theory pops it annoying head up, again. Don't forget, y'all, that planing and semi-planing hulls can not be included in the "hull speed theory" discussion.
So that would exclude most modern ocean racers.
Also...... Atlantic Al's comments mentioned nothing about "comfort". I would be much more comfortable in an Amel Maru 54.... but that's not the point of his post.
So that would exclude most modern ocean racers.
Also...... Atlantic Al's comments mentioned nothing about "comfort". I would be much more comfortable in an Amel Maru 54.... but that's not the point of his post.
Joe.....comfort has to be a factor. If a boat beats the crap out of the crew then crew fatigue is a HUGE problem. You need to factor in comfort because some of the journeys that were spoken of, above, were about survival. These people were on thin margins.
Sure....if that is what you are wanting to do and being extreme is your thing it is okay, but there are magic numbers when you think about survival, sustainability, and the ability to actually finish the journey!
Sure....if that is what you are wanting to do and being extreme is your thing it is okay, but there are magic numbers when you think about survival, sustainability, and the ability to actually finish the journey!
Please read Atlantic Al's original post.......... It's about people achieving great things in what most consider to be uncomfortable circumstances. It's the LACK of comfort that makes it notable.
- Status