I was having conversation with someone today about my long term aspirations of going engineless. Please note that this is LONG TERM, I certainly don't feel my seamanship is enough for it now without safety suffering severely. However, one day I'd very much like to completely end my dependence on oil/diesel.
Forgive me if this has been covered, if so I guess I'll just take the lashes, couldn't be worse than my strict Catholic boarding school days.
My question is: Who here sails without an engine? What are your thoughts on this? Just how accomplished do those who are engineless think one should be before taking this leap? Anyone have plans to eventually do so?
Here is some good information, although a bit cocky & purist, on this subject. http://www.oarclub.org/
Many of us here are familiar with Jay and the Oar Club. Good site, although he's moved on somewhat. we have several of his books and I reread parts of them often. I enjoy the thoughts and ideas. I do think he's a little "pie in the sky" a sometimes.
We would love to go mostly engineless. However, where our boat is berthed makes it virtually impossible to do that AND use the boat. Every time we go out, we are faced with a 4 mile run up a quite narrow channel. normally dead to windward. So we use our engine to get through that section, then as soon as we open out into sailing room, secure the thing.
Additionally, between bay systems here there are fairly narrow land cuts. We share those cuts with a significant amount ( far greater amount than the east coast ICW) of commercial traffic- tow boats pushing up to 6 barges. You DO NOT want to lose maneuverability when in the vicinity of one of those, I guarantee you. So we idle the engine if barges are present, just in case. We're usually under sail but the engine is on as a safety valve.
We practice hard to use the sails rather than the engine whenever possible. That's a large part of the pleasure in being on a sailboat. But some times it just isn't a prudent thing to do. Even the Pardeys get towed into and out of harbors quite often it seems. And I sure as the devil wouldn't want to sit outside a harbor for 3 or 4 days, waiting on a wind, when a small outboard would get me those last 4 or 5 miles.
CharlieJ-
Good points. I actually met Jay at his new place in Hawaii a few months ago, his first visitors! Great guy with a very interesting view on things.
Seems that the Achilles heel of engineless is currents and traffic for the most part. I still would like to get there though. I'm beginning to really think about and start to practice just how I would approach my current situations without an engine. Definitely a whole different ball of wax.
Going engineless ...
It seems like a good idea, but I think it may have a lot of drawbacks.
How about a happy medium? I know our boat style originally came with a 9 HP diesel. Now, they all have something between 15 to 20. It's said that that is what is required to punch through the ad stuff.
So, would it be possible to go back to a small, say 9 HP or less model and with a generator on it and use an electric drive to push the boat? I know it would not e as efficient, but I also know that most of the time I am running our 20 HP Yanmar I do not need all 20 horses pulling. And at times, it running to generate electricity to charge my batteries. I try NOT to run it for only charging, but after a few days with not much sun, it has to be done as we don't have the room for another generator aboard.
So, instead of engineless, how about a minimalist engine???
Just an idea...
Greg
One of my favorite books is Hiscocks "Wandering Under Sail' The book chronicles his very early cruising* and most of that was done engineless. All over Brittany, the French coast, and all up and down the English Channel. He used oars often to move the boat.
But there are tings he mentions casually, that just don't exist anymore. He speaks of "warping Buoys" in harbors and harbor pilot boats- small vessels that came out and guided ( or towed) visiting yachts into port. Those things are gone. So getting in and out of some of the ports he sailed in and out of pre WW II, would be inconceivable today, sad to say.
I think it's an admirable idea, and maybe should be done with the engine pulled out and tucked away somewhere. But I really don't think it's practical for most of us, in our "today" ports, all around the US. Certainly in some areas it's entirely feasible though. Sailing off a mooring in the NE is one that comes to mind. But not universally. Better not try it to seriously over where Kurt lives. ;D
* That's the book in which he states-
"It is a fact that I bought my first sailboat on a Wednesday, sailed it away on Thursday and found it wrecked on Friday"
So even Eric Hiscock had a learning curve ;D ;D
Greg- Speaking again of Hiscock - Eric and Susan did 2 circumnavigations aboard Wanderer III plus several Atlantic crossings and cruising tours of the US east coast.
Wanderer III had an 8 HP gas engine.
So sure. I see the "need more power" syndrome all over. I see it on TSBB where people want 15 and 20 HP outboards on trailerable sailboats "For safety" I think it's caused by the folks Jon Eisberg speaks of - the "motoring Kroozers". That mentality anyway and of course many of those boats NEED the bigger engine to push all that "poop" through the air.. And I personally think something gets lost there. They are, after all supposed to be "Auxiliary" sailboats.
Now, we do have an 8 HP outboard on Tehani. For two reasons- nothing smaller is a 2 cylinder, only single cylinders and they vibrate. And when we bought it we were broken down in mid Louisiana, with nothing but 300 miles of ICW in front of us, and it was the ONLY suitable engine available in all of southern Louisiana in a 4 stroke!! So we got it and have been delighted with it. We seldom throttle it up past a high idle and get hull speed there, at which point it SIPS fuel.
But we'd MUCH rather hang the rags ;D
Some really good points, no doubt not having an engine is inconvenient , even impractical.
I know engineless cruisers are around, seen a few here in Seattle, even saw one once sailing the Canal from Lake Union out to the sound, at least a 30ft, tack, tack, tack, took him about 30 minutes to get about 200 yards, but there he was doing it and alone even avoiding several M/Vs coming and going, completely in control if at a snail's pace.
Certainly something to aspire to be able to do.
After taking the Ariel out today again (where I also have a long motor out to where there is wind) I feel fairly confident that the 5hp Honda is going to be plenty, especially if I change the prop out for a displacement prop.
Tim
There may be a different way :o
On my bike which I commute to work I have a electic motor- it generates going down hill, and then using some of the energy to get me up the next hill. Granted it isn't very efficient. What if you had 4 big trogan batteries in your boat ( in the bilge area maybe?) that hooked to a electric motor and got you out of the harbour, then you switched to generate and it provided electricity- first to recharge your batteries then to power some goodies?
I have been thinkin on this one for a while. I'm thinkin it will work as long as you spend most of your time sailing (which seems to be the common thread around here)
Negatives:
1. High initial cost
2. Weight and space limitations
3. Cutlass bearing wear and tear.
Positives:
1.No desiel or gas
2.No engine
3. Replace solar/wind system with a more robust and protected (inside the boat) system
Anyone done this yet? ???
While the goal is admirable, I don't know if it is realistic. For instance, the Cape Cod Canal, Panama Canal and the local swing bridge near my marina all require a vessel transiting them to be under power and capable of a certain minimum speed.
I saw a boat where a generator was connected to the prop shaft with a pulley. He recharged his batteries while sailing.
I have one of those flashlights that you shake and it charges a small battery. I've wondered if it would be possible to take advantage of a boat's constant motion to generate some juice that way.
Hopefully fuel cell technology will start to make significant progress when petroleum gets too expensive to be burned.
Oded
Newt- Like the thought process there. We all better start thinking about alternatives as oil won't last forever and at some point may just get so expensive as being prohibitive to a great many cruisers.
Adrift - I'm not a die hard disciple of engineless, but if realism were a main factor in my decisions I'd have given up on many things that have been the most rewarding. On a practical side - one could always borrow or rent an outboard for canals. I believe one is supposed to also have an engine here when transiting(not 100% sure) but I've seen boats occasionally transit the opening bridges around here under sail only. Don't get me wrong I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there is a part of me that becomes riled when the government tells me I MUST use oil, especially on a sailboat. To me it's a lot like saying if you own property you MUST use electricity. I understand that with boats it can become a safety issue, but in simple, general terms I detest it.
Perhaps not having an engine would simply limit routes and certain places one could easily go.
I see absolutely no reason what-so-ever that you couldn't go engine-less, if that is what you want to do, provided you are aware of the limitations it will impose.
Cape Cod Canal, Chesapeake Canal, Panama Canal, etc ... out.
Intercoastal Waterway ... difficult.
Many, many marina's ... out.
Other places are probably also out. But that still leaves an awful lot of places you can still sail.
As to not having the skill to go engineless, well, I'm not sure you can actually get that skill without not using the engine. Your boat is small enough you can probably hook up a skulling or rowing system to move around (slowly) when necessary. I'd think a hard dink would be useful in case you need to tow yourself off a sandbar or something. Firm schedules (work?) are probably not compatible with engineless sailing. You will need to pay even greater attention to the weather and those big scary freighters and such. But if you can accept the limitations, and if engineless sailing turns you on, I say throw the beast overboard. You'll probably find your seamanship skills improve far more rapidly that way, too.
There's good reasons for no inboard. A 28 footer will have the interior space of a 32 footer of similar hull type with an engine. This allows for more provisions and water for longer passages. If the prop aperture is filled and faired, it makes a speedier boat. Toucan does >>23%<< faster than her sisters as a result of this. This means shorter passage times, or, longer passages that can be done.
Toucan is 28ft and six tons. I left the motor out of her and opted for an outboard. A Yamaha 9.9 is all she needs to do hull speed with some to spare. I have found that she can also be rowed at about three knots with some 12ft oars I made. However, the period of acceleration is a bit lengthy, but on the other hand, once up to speed, its fairly easy. During a cruise I did down to Grenada in 1996-7 I ran the outboard maybe 20 hours over the 5000 miles. Most of those could just as easily have been rowed. I was just lazy.
The Panama Canal, however, requires all boats to be able to maintain five knots, so the outboard would be called for there.
Actually, the Panama Canal requires a minimum full ahead boat speed of EIGHT knots as seen in this document (http://www.pancanal.com/eng/maritime/notices/2008/n01-2008.pdf). This is due to the time required to transit the canal and scheduling the opening and closing of the locks. There are some pretty massive fees for boats that can not make the minimum transit times IIRC.
Most boats of the sailfar mentality would have issues making the minimum requirements, powered or not. Eight knots is greater than hull speed on many of the boats represented here at sailfar.
A lot of this depends on where you want to go and do. The marina where I am at now requires you to motor into the slip. I have found tidal currents to run at 2 mph on the ICW and sometimes higher. Often 3.5 knots at the fuel dock.
A lot of the harbors in the Abacos, Bahamas you would not be able to get into execpt with good tide.
You can always not use it, but iti is nice to have.
The Big motor saved me many times and has "paid" for itself.
Regarding the Panama Canal, they will allow slower boats to make the passage. We watched, and recorded, friends of ours making the trip and posted it on YouTube as Panama Canal Transit.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_4Y-3mT6I-E&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_4Y-3mT6I-E&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> (//http://://www.youtube.com/v/_4Y-3mT6I-E&hl=en"></param><param%20name="wmode"%20value="transparent"></param><embed%20src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_4Y-3mT6I-E&hl=en"%20type="application/x-shockwave-flash"%20wmode="transparent"%20width="425"%20height="355"></embed></object>)
Sorry! I can't figure out to make that URL short!
I understand that they are going to do a lot of trucking of boats like ours.
By the way, the boat in the video are now (as of yesterday I think) anchor down in Fatu Hiva! They averaged about 110 nautical miles a day!!! Better than some of the bigger boats.
Greg
Wow.
Questions from a relative novice compare to most posters:
1. Is it cheaper to truck your yacht across the canal than to sail it for us mini-yachters? Could you even go to Columbia or Mexico and make it even more economical?
2. What do you think about making an inboard prop a generator? Better to do it with an outboard type unit or even a throw in back generator?
And now for a quiet rebuttal:
I don't think just because you do not have an internal combustion engine on board your yacht is crippled. I think you could reach close to hull speed on an electric motor. The only thing the people would notice is you don't make a lot of noise. The length of time you can do so would depend on the number of watt-hours you have saved up and the consumption of your electric motor. Kinda like (no almost exactly like) how much hydrocarbon fuel you have on board.
Storing electric power is a whole lot harder, but doable. And it has the advantage of being restored in route. Kinda like filling up in the middle of the Gulf Stream. I think the future looks bright for "engineless" sailboats... ;D
It very well may be easier and cheaper for small sailboats, like most of those in the sailfar crowd, to get trucked across, instead of taking the canal. The canal fees all add up to quite a bit... $600 for the boat, then you have to pay the advisor and four-line handlers, and rent the fenders and lines, etc... and if your boat is a smaller one that can't make the minimum eight knots, you'll pay the delay fee as well.
Hi Lynx ( and whomever else is listening)
My electric system would be a direct connect shaft to electric motor- generator. I should be able to wire it so it can power forward and reverse without a gearbox. Of course I could put a fully feathering prop on it but that further increases the money.
I am just wondering about the shaft bearing and dripless seal- would it wear out prematurely because it is turning when the boat gets about a few knots and can generate electricity... Though replacing the bearing may be small potatoes compaired to maintaining a wind charger and solar cells with thier associated electronics.
I'm doing the 'happy medium'. I have a 6hp 4 stroke Merc right now, but ever my eye wanders to my 3.5hp dinghy motor, as being "maybe *just enough*" for getting into somewhere when needed, and a lot lighter and smaller for the 99% of the time it'll be stowed away... :)
Greg - I looked for that YouTube video - is this it - S/V 'Moose'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtKDCutCEI
I had a 45 foot race boat with an engine that was mostly weight and repair expenses. I sailed her in and out of lots of places including a few marinas. She was such a fast and handy sailor that the lack of an engine was seldom a problem. In those places where an engine was required, we got a tow.
There is a book, "Loki and Loon" by... I think... Pritchard. He and his wife cruised and raced a 39 foot yawl all over New England without an engine. Again, Loki was a very handy vessel. In those days there were few marinas.
The Pardy adventures are all engineless.
A few small cruisers in the Caribbean are engineless.
My mom and dad cruised for six months during their honeymoon in a boat without an engine. Dad rowed. Their boat was a 26 foot sailing lifeboat.
It is really about "time." If you have the time to enjoy the slow days an engine is unnecessary.
Today, sail and power boats at 40 feet and up have thrusters so they can shoe-horn into tight marinas. Big engines guarantee arrivals at marinas on time.
Time is a curious resource for sailors.
I'm wondering (I do that allot) if it is easier to go engineless by setting anchor rather than going in a slip at night, and using your dingy to go to shore and do all your shopping etc... It just seems like modern marinas have such tangled ways to get in and out of. Of course this would put a premium on anchorages if everyone did this, but I am betting that most boaters would be too lazy to do this. And maybe that is what the mooring ball are for. ;)
When I was living aboard, and cruising full time, and now when we cruise, we normally do just that. We seldom ever (nor does Laura when she's by herself) go into a marina. We almost always anchor under sail and usually get underway from anchor using sails only.
You'll find the most true cruisers do the same thing. Maybe not the anchoring under sail part, but definitely the anchoring out part. I didn't meet many who could AFFORD to spend nights in marinas that often ;D
In fact, the last 10 months to a year I lived aboard and cruised, the boat NEVER touched a dock- we always anchored out. Used the dinghy to get water, fuel, whatever.
Additionally, we've seen several marinas that forbid sailing inside the marina- you HAVE to motor or row. We try to stay out of places like that if at all possible.
Quote from: CharlieJ on May 27, 2008, 08:05:08 PM
In fact, the last 10 months to a year I lived aboard and cruised, the boat NEVER touched a dock- we always anchored out. Used the dinghy to get water, fuel, whatever.
Well if there was a "devil" icon I would have to ask you how much Tehani has been away from the dock in the last 10 months ;)
But actually I was going to ask that you to post some pics of the mini-tri on this forum, because after all it is small, and I would consider 200 miles "far" enough ;D
;D
Twice with me aboard, 11 days with just Laura aboard. Things have just conspired to keep us tied to the dock the last year for the most part. NOT willingly I might add. We HAVE spent a couple nights aboard though. Hey- we haven't even had time to take her over to have her hauled- got the money in hand too.
But one or the other of us is aboard at least 4 times a week. I found out the other day that Laura drives down and at least LOOKS at the boat on her way to work often.
And yeah- I'll post some pics of the sharpie conversion. Got the cross arms installed today, will be attaching the amas tomorrow and I'll shoot some pics of that once they are on.
The living room is filling up with gear ;D Ice chests, stoves, lanterns, tents, sleeping pads, etc Laura has arranged to swap a few days and will be taking some without pay to make the sail. We're REALLY looking forward to it.
It is miuch cheeper to anchor out if you can find a spot and holds in all weather or in the weather that you are expecting, with the hopes that nobody drags into you.
I do prefer anchoring out or a mooring than a Dock most of the time. In 7 months I have spend 1 month at a dock with a great rate and 3 months on a mooring ball.
I have read a number of forum posts on engineless sailing. I find it disappointing how often they turn into discussions on alternative propulsion, or how to use your engine less often or propeller technology etc.
I find that sailing without an engine is just a choice with its own set of consequences just like sailing with an auxiliary engine. Sailing without an engine is possible, practical and can be very enjoyable.
Rather that decide this or that isn't possible or practical without an engine why can't a group of skilled sailors take a shot at the "impossible" issues of sailing engineless and come up with some solutions in an engineless sailing thread. Because I think they are out there waiting to be found (or remembered from the past).
This is my first post so hope I haven't been too harsh. It isn't my intent. I sail engineless because I just love to sail.
Bill
http://knockaboutsloops.blogspot.com/
ps. As an electric vehicle owner, I did enjoy the conversation about electric motors.
Bluenose,
Welcome aboard. You are right, this thread did get off topic since we were all excited by the 're-e-power' posts. I have split those posts off and added them to this thread;
Eric's electric propulsion idea & other electric motor options (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php?topic=100.0)
Maybe you can take a minute and post to the intro thread (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php?topic=575.0) to tell us something about yourself, your boat, and your plans.
Glad to have you aboard.
I think you will find there are others here who support enginless cruising... members like James Baldwin "AtomVoyager" who has done the majority of his mileage on multiple circumnavigations sans motor.
A difficult situation is trying to buck a strong adverse current in light winds. Without enough breeze, you simply can't generate enough drive to overcome the current and you can't develop any apparent wind. Progress, if any, is painfully slow.
Hugging the shore to escape the worst of the current helps, a little. But, be careful you don't blow a tack, which can happen when you have no momentum.
I don't have any answers, but I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to row against the current either
Quote from: s/v Faith on August 12, 2008, 10:51:38 PM
Bluenose,
Welcome aboard. You are right, this thread did get off topic since we were all excited by the 're-e-power' posts. I have split those posts off and added them to this thread;
Eric's electric propulsion idea & other electric motor options (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php?topic=100.0)
Maybe you can take a minute and post to the intro thread (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php?topic=575.0) to tell us something about yourself, your boat, and your plans.
Glad to have you aboard.
I think you will find there are others here who support enginless cruising... members like James Baldwin "AtomVoyager" who has done the majority of his mileage on multiple circumnavigations sans motor.
Thanks for the warm welcome and your effort to keep this thread on track. I will definitely take your advice and properly introduce myself.
Cheers, Bill
Quote from: Cmdr Pete on August 13, 2008, 03:02:02 PM
A difficult situation is trying to buck a strong adverse current in light winds. Without enough breeze, you simply can't generate enough drive to overcome the current and you can't develop any apparent wind. Progress, if any, is painfully slow.
Hugging the shore to escape the worst of the current helps, a little. But, be careful you don't blow a tack, which can happen when you have no momentum.
I don't have any answers, but I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to row against the current either
It's funny, time and time again I hear people tell me what can't be done. They stack one bad choice or situation after another to prove that sailing without an engine is impossible, inconvenient or unsafe. I can understand making different choices but let's be real here. If I stacked a bunch of combined problems on a sailboat with an auxiliary engine they would be in trouble as well (think about a lee shore, mainsail covers on and a clogged fuel filter).
But I have experience the situation you mentioned a few times. I know better than needing to sail against the current with a dying breeze. But still, I sometimes need reminding. One time in particular I went for a nice late afternoon daysail. I sailed up San Juan Channel past Friday Harbor with the current. As it was getting late I figured I would zoom home hard on the wind with little worry about the current. Well a few tacks in the old pop rivets in the gooseneck decided that they were done for the day and I lost the use of my boom. So I sailed under my genny alone three miles home against the current. With just the genny my Bluenose Sloop didn't point well and during lulls in the wind she wasn't making headway against the current (she has a fractional rig with a big mainsail). So I headed for shallow water. Which I thinks helps a lot. I also had my anchor available as a backup. But I hugged the shoreline (I don't worry about running aground as much when my speed is low) until I could fall off and reach home.
All in all I learned a great deal and found one more thing that wasn't "impossible". I have also been exploring how to "drastically" increase my sail area in light breezes so I can make headway against stronger and stronger currents.
I also don't quite understand what you mean by "blowing a tack". I don't think I have ever not come around when I wanted in even the lightest wind. Sometimes I will back wind the jib or skull the rudder but she always come around.
It is always my hope that conversations like this don't become a debate about engines or no engines but rather "I wonder what I would do in that situation if my boom failed or my engine failed". What choices would I have. How could I save my boat or crew.
Cheers, Bill
A big part of this is the time pressures of modern society that so many of us feel. "Waiting out a doldrum and tide change" is not an excuse that many employers find acceptable for coming in Tuesday afternoon instead of Monday morning.
Over the weekend, I did my first test of a sculling oar I made. It is made from the top 7' of an old fiberglass tapered mast and a 2x4 butchered on the bandsaw. It's 11.5' long with a 3' long blade cut so it is thick at the bottom edge (and that is where the shaft protrudes from) and thin on the top edge. I came up with that shape from loooking at various ones on the net and reading about the properties of the different shapes. I know - I will have to take some pics or it doesn't exist. :) it's pinned together so it comes apart and stows in my tiny cabin (actually stows quite well under cockpit rails). I think it did OK, but my first attempt at a removable bracket for it did not (serious torque!) so I couldn't really get as good a read on how it was doing as I would have liked. I am also inexperienced at true sculling. BTW, if I decide the blade is workable, I will shape the last couple of inches on the shaft (which slides inside the fiberglass tube) to fit the top of my rudder so it will double as a backup tiller. With my light weight boat, I am expecting to be able to power through some wind and current. This is primarily a backup for the motor, but if it works well it may often be preferable.
Much depends on the amount of current, of course. 1-2 kts of current might only be an annoyance. 3-4 kts can render the boat practically helpless.
Not to be a naysayer, but there has to be a practical limit as to how much horsepower a human can generate to propel a boat. The weight and type of boat is probably the big factor.
My little skiff rows beautifully, but against a 3kt current its brutal
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q30/commanderpete/seed1.jpg)
QuoteA big part of this is the time pressures of modern society that so many of us feel. "Waiting out a doldrum and tide change" is not an excuse that many employers find acceptable for coming in Tuesday afternoon instead of Monday morning.
I completely concur with this. I think that making a choice to have an engine to meet schedules is a great solution. It is not foolproof, but much more likely you can be where you want, when you want. But this is definitely not why I sail. Just different choices.
QuoteOver the weekend, I did my first test of a sculling oar I made. It is made from the top 7' of an old fiberglass tapered mast and a 2x4 butchered on the bandsaw. It's 11.5' long with a 3' long blade cut so it is thick at the bottom edge (and that is where the shaft protrudes from) and thin on the top edge. I came up with that shape from loooking at various ones on the net and reading about the properties of the different shapes. I know - I will have to take some pics or it doesn't exist. Smiley it's pinned together so it comes apart and stows in my tiny cabin (actually stows quite well under cockpit rails). I think it did OK, but my first attempt at a removable bracket for it did not (serious torque!) so I couldn't really get as good a read on how it was doing as I would have liked. I am also inexperienced at true sculling. BTW, if I decide the blade is workable, I will shape the last couple of inches on the shaft (which slides inside the fiberglass tube) to fit the top of my rudder so it will double as a backup tiller. With my light weight boat, I am expecting to be able to power through some wind and current. This is primarily a backup for the motor, but if it works well it may often be preferable.
Thanks for posting info on your sculling oar. I hope you will keep us posted on you experiences. I have been intrigued by sculling ever since I first started learning about engineless sailing. It seems that in the hands of a master they can be quite versatile. Forwards and backwards and spinning the boat in its own length. So far I haven't found a way to incorporate one with the long overhangs of my boats. But I will always keep thinking and figuring. I have elected to row with a single two piece oar standing and facing forward with the traveler off of center line and the tiller between my knees.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/wre1962/R1zNGzMoeZI/AAAAAAAABkE/kbnqf6CwRT0/s800/Oar%20Setup-jpeg.jpg)
Each piece of the oar will store under the side decks for easy access.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/wre1962/SJB8qCXAqSI/AAAAAAAAGJA/N8WIM8p1OW0/s800/2008-07-29%20-%20Bolero%20-%2044.jpg)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/wre1962/SJB8n_bmNkI/AAAAAAAAGI8/6NxpFBg96fA/s800/2008-07-29%20-%20Bolero%20-%2041.jpg)
QuoteMuch depends on the amount of current, of course. 1-2 kts of current might only be an annoyance. 3-4 kts can render the boat practically helpless.
Not to be a naysayer, but there has to be a practical limit as to how much horsepower a human can generate to propel a boat. The weight and type of boat is probably the big factor.
My little skiff rows beautifully, but against a 3kt current its brutal
Again, I am in complete agreement. A three kt current with no wind would be brutal. For me, with anything over about 8 kts it would be doable I think. But one of the things that really draws me to sailing is the learning and seamanship. If I have put myself in a place where I am "forced" to work against a 3-4 kt current I have made some poor choices and I don't think that I am displaying good seamanship. Even with an engine I would be putting myself in a situation where a single point failure could cost me my boat. I like to have many options in case things go wrong.
Cheers, Bill
ps.. Just love your skiff...
Here is an article on sculling a big boat:
http://www.scullingoar.bravehost.com/
You'll note that even though he is a proponent, he is very realistic about what it will accomplish.
You may also note that what he is doing has little in common with what I am doing. Mine is more inspired by the Bahama-style oar:
http://www.woodenboat.net.nz/Stories/Sculling/scullthree.html
The blade is extremely long in comparison to its width. In section, the oar is usually a shallow diamond or triangle used flat side down.
I was also aiming for the 12' length mentioned, but I feared I might not have enough overlap (wood shaft inside the fiberglass) and didn't want to risk breaking the only 7' tapered fiberglass tube I have (they don't fall from the heavens very often) so I shoved it in another 6" and it felt very solid.
EDIT - I also incorporated some thinking from reading about a Japanese small boat sculling oar which led me to question the value of symmetry in the Bahamas style oar. When I post a picture you will see what I mean. If I understand correctly (don't bet more than you can afford to lose on that), most of the work is done by half the blade and you roll the oar over for the stroke in the other direction, still leading with the same half.
Has anyone tried skulling a 10,000 + displacement boat? It seems to me that I have a very dim memory of John Vigor talking about skulling his boat?
Quote from: Shipscarver on August 14, 2008, 06:39:07 PM
Has anyone tried skulling a 10,000 + displacement boat? It seems to me that I have a very dim memory of John Vigor talking about skulling his boat?
Check the first article I linked to in the previous message; the author sculls a 16 ton gaff cutter. Here is the link again:
http://www.scullingoar.bravehost.com/
Quote from: OptiMystic on August 14, 2008, 03:39:37 PM
Here is an article on sculling a big boat:
http://www.scullingoar.bravehost.com/
You'll note that even though he is a proponent, he is very realistic about what it will accomplish.
You may also note that what he is doing has little in common with what I am doing. Mine is more inspired by the Bahama-style oar:
http://www.woodenboat.net.nz/Stories/Sculling/scullthree.html
The blade is extremely long in comparison to its width. In section, the oar is usually a shallow diamond or triangle used flat side down.
I was also aiming for the 12' length mentioned, but I feared I might not have enough overlap (wood shaft inside the fiberglass) and didn't want to risk breaking the only 7' tapered fiberglass tube I have (they don't fall from the heavens very often) so I shoved it in another 6" and it felt very solid.
EDIT - I also incorporated some thinking from reading about a Japanese small boat sculling oar which led me to question the value of symmetry in the Bahamas style oar. When I post a picture you will see what I mean. If I understand correctly (don't bet more than you can afford to lose on that), most of the work is done by half the blade and you roll the oar over for the stroke in the other direction, still leading with the same half.
One more addition (for now anyway) to my comments about my oar (which I will photograph this weekend) which is kind of a general thing about making a sculling oar...
I linked to page 3 of an old sculling article earlier to show the Bahamas style oar.
If you read page one of that article:
http://www.woodenboat.net.nz/Stories/Sculling/scullone.html
it discusses the two types of sculling. If you read through the descriptions quickly, you will probably wonder what kind of idiot would use the slalom style when it is very clear that the falling leaf style can provide more power and speed. The answer is my kind of idiot. Read more carefully - the slalom style is best with a steering oar and a steering oar can be used as a reasonable effective rudder in a pinch. The slalom style is more suited to tight manuevers - starting, stopping and turning. Now I am getting into personal theory derived from that article and other sources. The leading edge is what really does the work and the rotation causes the same leading edge to be used in both directions. So I made a shaft and blade such that it is like the top half of an 8" blade. It is smaller and stows better plus it can be cut from a 2x4. I will try the airfoil (mentioned on the page 3 link) next if I am not pleased with this. Also, not that I said the falling leaf style "can provide more power and speed" but I am not convinced it is substantially more efficient but rather capable of putting more power to use. In other words I think you may be able to go faster but will tire more quickly and I am not planning to go a long distance sculling (yeah, I read about Matt Layden crossing the Gulf Stream in the original Paradox with next to no wind).
OK, pictures...
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/arbarnhart/sculling_oar.jpg)
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/arbarnhart/sculling_oar1.jpg)
Great string here. I am currently preparing for an open ended cruise on our 24' cutter. I debate the whole engine thing everyday. My first boat had no engine so I didn't know any better. It was a twenty six foot Seaquest and I was 18. Now I'm forty and on boat 11. The only time I have truly felt unsafe at sea is when my engine is running. As soon as I start the engine I feel tense till it is shut off. Its like I'm just waiting for it to stall any second for any reason. Even with new engines and I have had a few I just don't trust them. We live and sail in the San Juan's where there are fairly strong currents so a tiny kicker would be nice but still I hate the idea of an engine. We are installing a mount so we can get through the canals but we may go around the real way so I will have 4 holes and a unsightly contraption hanging there for nothing. I'm not a purist I just don't like engines.
www.boatyardpirates.com
I posted this on an old string before I realized how old it was so I figured I would start a new one. I would love to hear more about sailors without engines good and bad. I am currently preparing for an open ended cruise on our 24' cutter. I debate the whole engine thing everyday. My first boat had no engine so I didn't know any better. It was a twenty six foot Seaquest and I was 18. Now I'm forty and on boat 11. The only time I have truly felt unsafe at sea is when my engine is running. As soon as I start the engine I feel tense till it is shut off. Its like I'm just waiting for it to stall any second for any reason. Even with new engines and I have had a few I just don't trust them. We live and sail in the San Juan's where there are fairly strong currents so a tiny kicker would be nice but still I hate the idea of an engine. We are installing a mount so we can get through the canals but we may go around the real way so I will have 4 holes and a unsightly contraption hanging there for nothing. I'm not a purist I just don't like engines.
www.boatyardpirates.com
I quite enjoyed your website and all of the gorgeous photos. I wish you well in pending travels.
In my way of thinking if your are asking yourself if you really need an engine you probably don't. It doesn't appear to me that your life is bound by time constraints but more by not wanting extra expenses.
Where do you sail in the San Juan's? I sail from Lopez Island. Seems I would have noticed your Alegra 24. They aren't that common. Maybe this summer we will run into each other on the water.
Cheers, Bill
I answered the other thread before I saw this one.
Ah... the old engineless, engine debate. I hardly have the strength. So I will only dip my toe in this time.
Sometimes it seems, looking at the modern world of boating, that sailboats have always had engines and that the first 4,000 or 5,000 years didn't count. Obviously engine are great aids for convenience and powering systems, but I contend that at best they don't add a thing to a good sailboat and often they diminish the sailing qualities.
So if you feel comfortable in your sailing skills and have patience and the ability to plan your voyages (which you probably should do with an engine anyway) I say go for it.
Cheers, Bill
http://knockaboutsloops.blogspot.com/
ps.. When did the 5000 year old tradition of sailing a boat without an engine become a purist action?
Quote from: boatyardpirates on March 11, 2009, 07:19:19 PM
I posted this on an old string before I realized how old it was so I figured I would start a new one.....
There is nothing wrong with posting to an old thread, as a matter of fact we encourage that here. ;D
There is a lot of information, and might as well take advantage of it rather thengoing through the re-invention of the wheel every time.
FWIW,
I admire those who cruise engine less. I might consider it for something like an extended cruise of the South Pacific (based entirely on what I have read) but not for a cruise that included the East Coast or the Gulf Coast of the US. Rose and I Sail ALOT, often where other boats are rarely seen to sail (one of the many advantages of being small). We were the odd balls who were often told to lower our sails and motor through bridges... at times even being told it was the law. :P That said I would recommend having some work-around for enginless crusing for those times when nothing else works.
Even if it is just a 2hp motor on your dingy that you can lash to the side.. there are times when the options are just not good without some means to move the boat.
For instance, if you sail near land where there is excessive wind shadow from buildings... or need to transit a lock... Or just get rousted from an anchorage in the middle of the night because the wind changes.. or a barge comes... or you are becalmed and that big ole cruise ship does not appear to see you... :o
Just some things to think about.
Quote from: s/v Faith on March 12, 2009, 02:08:10 AM
There is nothing wrong with posting to an old thread, as a matter of fact we encourage that here. ;D
;) saves in time searching
It is my opinion that the sailor that sails without and engine (or does not use one) is the better sailor. That said, there were probably more shipwrecks back then because of natures ways. Imagine trying to get off a shore with the tide and wind against you. Or being demasted and just being a stones throw away from safety, but being carried by the current. I try to sail engineless, just keeping the darn thing off. If it offends you on the outside of your boat, get a small outboard and keep it in good preserved condition down below as ballast. ;D
I have a little (6 h) outboard. If you want it, PM me.
Well, maybe.
There seems to be a few things missing these days that were present in the days of pure sail. Like warping buoys strung along channels leading into harbor, so boats could be warped from one to the next.
And there don't seem to be any Whitehalls around anymore to carry passengers in when the ship was forced to lay offshore at anchor due to foul or no winds.
Some places, some times, it is good seamanship to be using an engine.
Plus you were not sharing narrow waterways with things like this-
In my discussions with fellow sailors on engine-less as an ideal, I find the most oft cited reason against going without mechanical propulsion is NOT these safety issues. It is schedule or convenience based...some variation of "what if there is no wind" or "what if the tide is wrong."
Just curious...in those places where they claim it is "illegal" to sail through a bridge, is that really so? I've not found any such laws (which does not mean they are not there). I mean, the navigable waterways are for public use. Using an engine if you have one is one thing, but making a waterway off limits to a vessel without an engine is something else entirely.
Anyone know of a specific case where a boater was cited for sailing through an open bridge, with no collision and no damage?
Capn Smollett—
I don't know if it is illegal, but the swing bridge that I deal with regularly will not open for a sailboat that has its sails unfurled. The bridge requires you to pass through under power, with the sails furled from my conversations with them.
Back in the early 80s I had a bridge tender in Florida refuse to open and let me through under sail. I told him my engine was dead and I could sail just fine. They forced me to call the marine patrol, who sent a boat to tie alongside. I then had her drop her engines into neutral and we sailed though- but all was well since she was lashed alongside and "powering" me through the bridge.
The NEXT bridge down the way, just north of Ft Pierce, opened on demand for me, still under sail. I sailed through with zero difficulties.
This aboard a 35 foot trimaran
Of course I also had a tender refuse to open for me, for over an hour and a half, because I "didn't signal correctly" Finally got through when I called Coast Guard Savannah on the VHF and they called the tender and ORDERED her to open the bridge. This was the bridge JUST north of Thunderbolt Marina in Georgia.
I talked to Nathan about this this evening. The miles under his various keels are in the 5 figures...East and West Coasts of the US, Sea of Cortez, Bahamas, Carib, etc.
He said they can and will refuse to OPEN a bridge for a vessel under sail, but if it opens on a schedule or is otherwise open, they cannot refuse you PASSAGE through an open bridge. He said he was well aware of this notion that tenders can refuse you passage under sail, but that it is a myth...there is no basis for it.
He used to sail the Miami River a lot and its associated 11 bridges...
I sailed through Ben Sawyer Bridge on the ICW just north of Charleston, and the bridge tender came out to ask me what was up...I told her we had had a mechanical failure and had no other propulsion. She just watched us go by.
Food for thought as they say.
This is always an interesting topic.
Like Pirates, I sailed for years without any auxiliary power. I was a kid, and I was sailing either a 12-foot catboat or a larger, 18-foot, hard-chined marconi-rigged racing catboat. I took the latter through some pretty hair-raising conditions. Sometimes I had to drop the hook, or just drift. Sometimes I just rushed through, probably because I was in my teens and early 20s and didn't know any better.
However, I think the real key is where you want to sail. As Dan said, in our area there are waters where you simply cannot go without an engine. The Cape Cod Canal comes to mind right away. And there's Woods Hole Passage. I've gone through there under sail a couple of times, and it was obviously done that way in the Age of Sail. But the old-timers didn't have to contend with heavy commercial traffic (they'll usually leave you alone if you keep to the edge of the channel) and Sea-Ray hordes during the summer. Those weekend warroirs are much more dangerous than the rocks or the current.
For a long offshore passage, I'd think you could do perfectly well without an engine. But for entering unfamiliar harbors, crossing shipping lanes or cruising close to shore, I'd certainly feel more comfortable knowing I had a "steel genny" in reserve.
Just my thoughts as a graybeard.
--Joe
I'd agree with Joe... the main requirement for an aux engine is coastal... on the open ocean, there's very little need for it.
Still no plans for an engine but we mounted the new outboard bracket for getting through the canals. We had discussed having a small 6hp in the lazzerette but there are still the fumes. Our boat obviously has no motor but we also have no head so our boat is very fresh. Mounting the mount :) was an all day affair but finally got it done. Half way through I was kicking myself wondering why I was wasting so much time ruining the beautiful lines of our boat and spending so much money on something I may never use. We are based out of Bellingham but the boat has not been in the water since i purchased her. She had fallen from grace and has been a full time job with the refit. We are planning on launching in the next few weeks (months :( ) and thats when the real fun begins. If you want to know how much cruising costs it easy. Its how much you have. I had the perfect one man one dog boat and was weeks away from setting out when I met a girl. That was three years ago and that boat just couldn't do the 2 dogs 2 humans thing. When we purchased the Rio we could easily have purchased a 40' fixed but never would have had the yacht we have know. We listed our Flicka for sail moved into our car and decided we would drive around the world if we had too to find the perfect boat. She ended up finding us and the rest is history. Ali
Hey Pirates:
That outboard sounds like a good plan. As you probably know, Yves Gelinas, the inventor of the Cap Horn windvane, circumnavigated on an engineless Alberg 30 Jean du Sud. He mounted a small outboard on a swinging bracket for the times when he had to rely on auxiliary power. I don't think he actually used the kicker very much.
Good luck on the voyage!
--Joe
Quote from: Oldrig on March 13, 2009, 12:05:03 PM
Hey Pirates:
That outboard sounds like a good plan. As you probably know, Yves Gelinas, the inventor of the Cap Horn windvane, circumnavigated on an engineless Alberg 30 Jean du Sud. He mounted a small outboard on a swinging bracket for the times when he had to rely on auxiliary power. I don't think he actually used the kicker very much.
Good luck on the voyage!
--Joe
It was my understanding that he mounted that ob AFTER completing his circumnav. If my memory is serving, he solo circled completely engineless.
His outboard bracket is an interesting design...
Smollett:
I stand corrected. Here's the intro from the Jean du Sud website
"Before he set out around the world, Yves Gélinas took the engine out of his Alberg 30 Jean-du-Sud. When time came to re-power his boat after coming back home, the designer of the Cape Horn Integrated Self-Steering System adopted an original solution."
At any rate, his solution was "original" and interesting.
--Joe
did I get this right? ??? I throw out my engine, in my early Havsfidra. Coz I needed the space, and become a better sailor without...If your on a big ocean It dosn't matter anyhow, can never carrie enough fuel so...and also get rid of the smell! just an oppinion
Sure, why not, throw the beast overboard. Of course, sooner or later every voyage comes to an end, and when you will get off the big ocean and you might prefer to have it again.
Not to take this conversation off topic, but... oh what the heck:
WF stated a dislike to the government telling him to use oil.
A little out of hand isn't it? The power of government.
I say DON'T TREAD ON ME!
now, back to engines
This thread has gone some interesting places since started. I must say I have enjoyed them all. In respect to bridges, what would they say if you got your oars out at the bridge. Assuming of course a slack tide. Would they open for you?
Just because you don't have one of those fuel combustion thingys, does not mean you don't have a prop in the water. I am toying with the idea of just an electric trolling motor. Would they give you grief about one of those in the ICW?
Enquiring minds want to know :P
I can only speak on my own particular case. I was bridge tender on the ICW for seven years, tending the Bridge of Lions in St. Augustine, FL, and Crescent Beach Bridge, just south of St. Aug. There's a hierarchy of control on bridges. Bridges come under the control of the USCG, who in turn give control to the individual state highway departments, who in turn contract the tending jobs out to sub-contractors. Each level can impose their own restrictions eventhough they come under an umbrella of federal regulations. With that said, I know of no requirement for mechanical power for passing through a bridge. We had boats sail through as well as power through. In a personal case where I lost power just as I approached a bridge, I jumped in the dinghy, caught a docking line from my wife as I rowed past the bow, and pulled the boat through under oars. As long as the passage can be made with safety and in a manner that doesn't tie up highway traffic being held up by the opening, there should be no problem. Our problems were basically two---(1) Skippers not contacting the bridge to request an opening, milling around some distance from the bridge or around a marina, missing a scheduled opening and then getting upset with the tender because he hadn't read their minds. Initiating communications with the bridge by radio or horn is the responsibility of the skipper. (2) Skippers not approaching close enough to make a prompt passage, especially if bucking the current, or waiting too long to get started once the bridge starts to open, thus delaying the passage and delaying motorists as well. While openings do pose a safety issue when police, fire trucks or ambulances are trying to respond to a call, the greatest number of complaints are from the general motoring public who are at risk of not getting their latte on the way to work. Skippers can help tenders by communicating and setting themselves up to accomplish a prompt passage. It's in the skippers' own interest as well. The fewer complaints the highway department receives, the less likely they are to impose further restrictions on openings.
Quote from: thistlecap on April 02, 2009, 06:12:34 PM
I can only speak on my own particular case. I was bridge tender on the ICW for seven years,
Grog for that informative post. Thanks!
Sailing without an engine is a pureist way of sailing but it leaves you shy of a lot of places that you need a motor to access.
I sailed a 44ft yacht around without an engine many years ago and it could be a pain in the butt.
Sailing vessels of years ago didn't have engines but they plyed routes that didn't require them to have an engine or rowers came out to get them.
Many many boats attest to the difficulties of having no engines by the number of shipwrecks around the world.
As some have said before.
Have an engine. You don't have to use it but caught on a lee shore in a wind change one night might mean the difference between having and not having a boat.
There will be a lot of places you will never get to without the engine as things have changed over the years since the old sailing ships.
I bet there would have been a few skippers that would have given their eye teeth for an engine at times.
Allan
I really, really need to stop reading these types of posts. Time and time again when talking about engineless sailing some combination of mishaps happens to a sailboat that makes an engine invaluable. In this case (please don't think I am picking on you) it is a demasting.
Quote from: newt on March 12, 2009, 11:42:48 AM
It is my opinion that the sailor that sails without and engine (or does not use one) is the better sailor. That said, there were probably more shipwrecks back then because of natures ways. Imagine trying to get off a shore with the tide and wind against you. Or being demasted and just being a stones throw away from safety, but being carried by the current. I try to sail engineless, just keeping the darn thing off. If it offends you on the outside of your boat, get a small outboard and keep it in good preserved condition down below as ballast. ;D
I have a little (6 h) outboard. If you want it, PM me.
The occurrence of sailboats losing their masts must be so much less frequent than engine failure to make it a moot point. Why would anyone possibly imagine a demasting. Given the choice of relying on my mast or an engine it would be an easy choice.
Quote from: Oldrig on March 12, 2009, 08:43:58 PM
However, I think the real key is where you want to sail. As Dan said, in our area there are waters where you simply cannot go without an engine. The Cape Cod Canal comes to mind right away. And there's Woods Hole Passage. I've gone through there under sail a couple of times, and it was obviously done that way in the Age of Sail. But the old-timers didn't have to contend with heavy commercial traffic (they'll usually leave you alone if you keep to the edge of the channel) and
I really think it isn't about where you sail but more about how much you want to sail. Dang near everywhere there is water was sailed prior to engines being added to sailboats. The idea "If there is a will there is a way" really works here.
There isn't anything right or wrong about rowing, sailing, motorsailing or floating in an inner tube but let's just try and not justify one choice by discrediting the others. Let's at least give people a chance with the will to find a way.
When I first moved up to the Pacific Northwest (apparently one of those crappy wind areas) and I wanted to start sailing again all anyone could say was to get a good motor. Why couldn't they just say that they felt safer with a motor. Why did it have to be the only choice? The right choice?
Dear Bluenose,
My little boat was demasted by the previous owner. Scared his wife so bad that he had to sell the boat. I have stretched the shrouds in a bad blow but have never lost a mast. A Cat 27 that I had previously owned had also been violently demasted by a previous owner. (that must of been quite a show) I think your post about demasting is inaccurate. I will continue to sail my boat off the slip, but keep the outboard in the back. I am kinda compulsive though. ;D
Actually early boats had engines, they were sometimes called slave, other times just the crew who needed to be kept busy when that pesky wind would not cooperate. I defy any one who has sailed in the San Juan and gulf islands of Pacific N.W. to say they have not used some mode of propulsion other than sail. ;) Not saying it couldn't be done and hasn't been done but to do it you would have to step back to childhood when clock and calender has no meaning. Now that is sailing :)
Quote from: mrb on April 16, 2009, 10:14:26 PM
you would have to step back to childhood when clock and calender has no meaning. Now that is sailing :)
Uh- Isn't that now called "Cruising"?
At least that's our plan come July- no schedule, no timetable, no real destination- and who cares what day it is :D
yep ;D
Now I'm confused, that just passed spell check
In the end my passion is sailing. I only try to defend sailing without an engine in case there are other who have interest. But it is a pointless debate in our modern day world of boating. So I will stop and leave Sailfar.net in peace.
After all I have less than 4 weeks to launch day and I have big plans for a full season of sailing.
Cheers, Bill
Lopez Island, WA
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rqLNS-z1IIU/SPwbh2PZliI/AAAAAAAAI_g/HGMCx0eJNlo/s800/Dicks%20Bolero%20Photos%20-%2010-18%20-%2001.JPG)
Bluenose
Very nice.
When I left the N.W. for AR. one of the things that settled me on where I live was the view across lake. Rainy day with mountains across lake with cut going into bay. Unlike the west I am able to keep boat in water year round with almost weekly sailings even in winter. No oysters or crabs. Ran into a large pod of Orcas of S.E. shore of Lopez once.
Best of luck on your launch, and many happy adventures
melvin
"The occurrence of sailboats losing their masts must be so much less frequent than engine failure to make it a moot point. Why would anyone possibly imagine a demasting. Given the choice of relying on my mast or an engine it would be an easy choice."
I'm probably better off keeping my pie hole shut, but as usual I wont. I think Bluenose has a very valid and important point here. He's probably overstepped a *slight*bit in saying "Why would anyone possibly imagine a demasting." but not really much. If you really are worried then you might consider getting a new mast or rigging.
Demastings must be much MUCH less frequent than engine problems. How much less? I dunno, I would guess less than 1 desmasting for every 10 engine failures. Perhaps even 1 for every 100 or 1000? And that's the crux of his point. Dead batteries, dirty fuel, empty fueltanks and fouled props are par for the course, and that's just getting started. Masts shouldn't fail short of catastrophe. Well I guess engines shouldn't either, but darnit it happens!
The point of view that "masts never fail" is probably a flawed one. They do fail. But, a well designed, well cared for mast and rigging should not come down, and it's my understanding that in practice it is very rare for them to do so.
It's really a funny subject... and not in the HAHA sort of way this engine-less banter.
I've discovered in the cruising and boat community there is a certain reaction to not having an engine ( or in my case going over to an electric propulsion system) which is akin to upsetting the neighbors way out of proportion to the crime. Some people get really pissed off...
A lot of folks take it as you making the statement that you are a better sailor than they are...Which is not what our engine-less and electric drive brethren are saying...On the other hand I have noticed that people who go without engines often DO become better sailors fairly quickly as their engine-less status is something of a forced advanced sailing class which while being a nice bonus but not the reason behind it all... The end result is that people who sail a lot in all conditions do become better.
They also think that by going engine-less you have a political objective to yank out their engine...Again not the case at all but with some of the reactions I have come accross you'd certainly think so.
Its all made worse because they can wrap up their insecurity ( which is really what it is all about) and foist on you with the "you need an engine to be safe" rants over and over...
These days I never even mention the fact that I have an electric drive in groups of cruisers as what they don;t know won't hurt them (or make them insecure) and I won't have to hear that I'm doomed not being able to motor off a lee shore in a hurricane when my mast has fallen down and other highly unlikely scenarios of woe...
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
Quote from: s/v necessity on April 17, 2009, 01:23:17 PM
Demastings must be much MUCH less frequent than engine problems. How much less? I dunno, I would guess less than 1 desmasting for every 10 engine failures. Perhaps even 1 for every 100 or 1000?
Kinda depends on WHERE your focus is...if I focus on voyaging sail boats making high latitude blue water passages, I'd guess dismasting is far more frequent.
Quote
But, a well designed, well cared for mast and rigging should not come down, and it's my understanding that in practice it is very rare for them to do so.
Nothing man-made can make this claim...sorry to be pedantic, but no matter how well designed or how well cared-for the rig is, failures can and DO occur. If not, every boat entering every blue water race would complete the race - after all, those boats are the pinnacle of design and maintenance.
I guess my point is how do we, as individuals, view our boats. Is it rigged for offshore passage making? If so, a strong rig is a necessity and an engine may be superfluous. Coastal hopping? The use profile is COMPLETELY different, so the acceptable compromises are completely different.
As usual with boats, blanket statements are difficult to stand on their own. Engineless cruising defines a set a parameters for the cruiser that is different from cruising with an engine; the problems generally arise when the sailor tries to define a set of operational parameters that lie outside what the boat can reasonably deliver.
Quote from: s/v necessity on April 17, 2009, 01:23:17 PM
"The occurrence of sailboats losing their masts must be so much less frequent than engine failure to make it a moot point. Why would anyone possibly imagine a demasting. Given the choice of relying on my mast or an engine it would be an easy choice."
I'm probably better off keeping my pie hole shut, but as usual I wont. I think Bluenose has a very valid and important point here. He's probably overstepped a *slight*bit in saying "Why would anyone possibly imagine a demasting." but not really much. If you really are worried then you might consider getting a new mast or rigging.
Demastings must be much MUCH less frequent than engine problems. How much less? I dunno, I would guess less than 1 desmasting for every 10 engine failures. Perhaps even 1 for every 100 or 1000? And that's the crux of his point. Dead batteries, dirty fuel, empty fueltanks and fouled props are par for the course, and that's just getting started. Masts shouldn't fail short of catastrophe. Well I guess engines shouldn't either, but darnit it happens!
The point of view that "masts never fail" is probably a flawed one. They do fail. But, a well designed, well cared for mast and rigging should not come down, and it's my understanding that in practice it is very rare for them to do so.
You expressed my point in a far more even mannered way than I managed. I didn't completely make up this idea in my head. I had recently read about "emergency" towing in the San Juan Island's and thought about how often masts may fail when I read the early posts in this thread.
QuoteCapt Richard J Rodriguez in his blog BitterEnd had a post from the July 4th week in 2007 that added some numbers to my anecdotal experience. Capt Rodriguez is a rescue tug operator that answers Vessel Assist call in the San Juan Islands. Here is an excerpt from his blog.
Here are the top five reasons why over 3,500 boaters have been helped by TowBoatUS and Vessel Assist this week:
1. General engine failure: 57% of cases
2. Battery jumps / electrical: 15% of cases
3. Out of fuel or fuel problems: 10% of cases
4. Soft Grounding: 10% of cases
5. Outdrive / Overheating: 8% of cases
It is very hard for me to imagine mast failings being significant to numbers like these. I realize that these weren't all sailboats but still. This is a lot of engine failures.
Quote from: LooseMoose on April 17, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
It's really a funny subject... and not in the HAHA sort of way this engine-less banter.
I've discovered in the cruising and boat community there is a certain reaction to not having an engine ( or in my case going over to an electric propulsion system) which is akin to upsetting the neighbors way out of proportion to the crime. Some people get really pissed off...
A lot of folks take it as you making the statement that you are a better sailor than they are...Which is not what our engine-less and electric drive brethren are saying...On the other hand I have noticed that people who go without engines often DO become better sailors fairly quickly as their engine-less status is something of a forced advanced sailing class which while being a nice bonus but not the reason behind it all... The end result is that people who sail a lot in all conditions do become better.
They also think that by going engine-less you have a political objective to yank out their engine...Again not the case at all but with some of the reactions I have come accross you'd certainly think so.
Its all made worse because they can wrap up their insecurity ( which is really what it is all about) and foist on you with the "you need an engine to be safe" rants over and over...
These days I never even mention the fact that I have an electric drive in groups of cruisers as what they don;t know won't hurt them (or make them insecure) and I won't have to hear that I'm doomed not being able to motor off a lee shore in a hurricane when my mast has fallen down and other highly unlikely scenarios of woe...
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
Bob, wow! I am stunned by your insightfullness, honesty and courage making that post. I agree with most of what you say. But I would expand on one thing. Sailing without an engine is not about arrogance. I certainly don't feel superior to any other sailors. In fact it is just the opposite. By my choice of sailing without an engine I have nowhere to hide from my own lack of sailing skills. So much so that I am planning to really work hard this year improving them. Here is my current skills improvement plan (from one of my blog posts).
QuoteMy Summer Goal - Becoming a More Proficient Sailor
One of the biggest problems that I have due to my love of sailing is that I don't practice enough. When the wind is nice and I am on a great close hauled course, I could sail that way for ever. But, sailing isn't really about nice close hauled courses (well maybe it is, but there are other important skills). It is about maneuvers, like docking, reefing, picking up a mooring, anchoring etc.
I was reminded of this last week when Jay FitzGerald stopped by and made a quick, pointed comment to my blog.
Hi Bill, it Jay.
Beautiful boat, I know your harbor and it looks like a lot of fun.
Too much power in the headsail and not enough in the main. You need a blade jib and a powerful vang.
Anyway.
It would be easy to pat myself on the back and focus and the first sentence but the wisdom was in the second. In many way I am a bit of a hack. Lacking in some of the required nuances of sailing technique. So my summer goal is to work to develop and enhance my sailing skills.
Specifically
* Sail Trim - The straight skinny is that I know the basics of sail trim and on a scale of 1 to 10 might give myself a 6. My old boat didn't have much in the way of sail trim controls but Bolero has almost all of them. And my lack of knowledge of these new tools is readily apparent. My improvement plan consists of two parts. First study like heck. There is no shortage of great info on sail trim and I have more than enough references. But second I am thinking about getting some on the water training. For some reason, Lopez Island island is a mecca for great sailors. World champion in this class. Or an America's Cup sailor, or North Sails guru. The list is quite long. So I am hopeful that after a bunch of studying I can coerce, pay or kidnap someone to come on the water with me and set me straight.
* Casting off the Mooring - There is almost nothing that I really like about my casting off procedure. Neither Bolero or my old Bluenose really liked to point into the wind and they will try to start sailing when the mainsail is about half way up. Currently it is a bit of a circus of raising the main and going aft to untangle the main sheet or correct the tiller to keep the boat into the wind all the while trying not to run over the mooring and then back to the mast to finish raising the mainsail. Then I quickly raise the jib, back wind it to fall off away from the mooring and cast off. Okay it isn't always bad. Sometimes it goes very smooth. But I want a better more controlled procedure. One that works in really light air (which is often worse) and heavy air.
* Picking up a Mooring - Not surprisingly, I do this as much or more than casting off my mooring (I actually practice this one). I am pretty good at it. But still there are times when I suck at it. And there really is no excuse for doing something so often and doing it poorly. No matter what my success ratio is. So I am going to try to find out why it can get messy and fix my procedure. I am also going to really, really learn about the amount of way Bolero makes under various speeds. Which means I need to learn, without electronics, how fast she is going.
* Reefing - I think it was Rod Stephens who said something to the effect "that if you can't reef in less than a minute either your system is wrong or your skills are poor". Enough said. My goal is to really streamline my reefing system and skills.
* Docking - The further down this list we get the worse my skills. I dock three or four times per year. Mostly as a result of launching and hauling out. I have, knock on wood, been pretty successful with this. But there is not way I can attribute this to skill. All of my docking has been into the wind or a beam wind coming off the dock without much boat traffic. So this will also be the year of docking practice. We have plenty of docks situated in every possible orientation to the wind. This will really be boring.
* Anchoring Under Sail - I have done this twice. There, I said it. No experience at all. Plenty of reading and my plan will be completely stolen from Jay's books. Bolero is really my first boat with a permanent anchor system and the ability to spend the night away from the mooring.
Well this should make for a full summer, and then some, of sailing.
In any case I am failing in my promise to layoff the engineless sailing talk and I want to finalize my reefing system.
Cheers, Bill
Having a boat with an enging is not about feeling insecure these days it is about being safe and being able to go where the engineless boats can not.
Forget the sailors that sail around the world engineless. You do not hear about the amount of near misses in ports where traffic has increased ten fold or the places they were unable to visit or access or the number of times they wished the had an engine.
It is a personal preference not about feeling insecure.
I am a commercial master and have been for the last 30 years. I have seen it all. I will keep my engine thanks.
Allan
I keep on reading the above posts wondering if these flames are intentional or they really think they are making a point. On the off chance that they are sincere, I will offer perhaps a quick insight.
1. This is not a thread about whither engines are good or not. We all use sailboats, hopefully all sail them. Sails good, engines stinky and usually bad.
2. No one ever said demasting happens more than engine failure. Once again, sails good, engines stinky and usually bad.
3. No one ever said electric propulsion is bad. Clean movement quiet movement good, engines stinky and usually bad.
4. Safety however is good. Safety allows me to get home after a rotten day when everything has gone wrong. And safety at sea is built on redundancy. My boat has a. sails b. outboard c. oars
Now if you want to got without b, or substitute a electric motor for b. I am all for it. I think we all need to get off hydrocarbons eventually. I ride a bike instead of a car. (now thats another discussion we could get into) But don't think that this is a discussion of sails vs engine. That would be in the motorboat groups lists. Remember, we are all sailors here. We like sailing!
Now if the above was a troll- please leave us alone to our dirty, stinky engines err mine having problems starting right now...
Quote from: newt on April 17, 2009, 08:11:17 PM
I keep on reading the above posts wondering if these flames are intentional or they really think they are making a point. On the off chance that they are sincere, I will offer perhaps a quick insight.
1. This is not a thread about whither engines are good or not. We all use sailboats, hopefully all sail them. Sails good, engines stinky and usually bad.
2. No one ever said demasting happens more than engine failure. Once again, sails good, engines stinky and usually bad.
3. No one ever said electric propulsion is bad. Clean movement quiet movement good, engines stinky and usually bad.
4. Safety however is good. Safety allows me to get home after a rotten day when everything has gone wrong. And safety at sea is built on redundancy. My boat has a. sails b. outboard c. oars
Now if you want to got without b, or substitute a electric motor for b. I am all for it. I think we all need to get off hydrocarbons eventually. I ride a bike instead of a car. (now thats another discussion we could get into) But don't think that this is a discussion of sails vs engine. That would be in the motorboat groups lists. Remember, we are all sailors here. We like sailing!
Now if the above was a troll- please leave us alone to our dirty, stinky engines err mine having problems starting right now...
With respect to leaving us along to our dirty, stinky engines... consider it done. I do find your request ironic for a thread titled "Engineless Cruising".
But whatever.
Cheers, Bill
Lopez Island, WA
Aww, c'mon fellas - no need to get yer rigs out of tune because someone else feels differently about engines and sailboats. ;D
As far as Engines, or Not, maybe its time to remember: Different strokes, for different folks.
I love sailing and being on the water with other boats (sail *and* power (mostly ;))) simply for the fact that out there we all have our freedom of Personal Choice much moreso than we do on land. We can have different craft (even of the same original type), different places to go, and different ways to get there, and all that doesn't really matter to us, on our own boats, on our own journeys. So I'd hate to see any of y'all have hard feeling against each other simply because of the Other Persons Choice about how they do things on *their* boat, and how they think/feel/talk about it.
Personally, as one who has a minimal engine (and who could thus be construed as being in either 'camp' :)), I have read and learned from this thread some new things, and IMO that is just great and is the whole point of our getting together for discussion about these topics we love.
Bill on Bluenose - awesome, great picture. Beautiful boat. She's even prettier on the water!
Great points in many of the responses here. CJ, I wish they still had warping buoys. :) Smollett and I coulda used 'em when we brought his boat into G-town with a balky engine and winds almost on the nose! lol
And now, to be a bit of a pedant myself :P : Those boats in the bluewater races, their rigs are indeed highly engineered and maintained well, BUT you gotta remember that they are designed on the thin edge, and sailed HARD. Those rigs are pared to a bare minimum of what the racers and designers estimate that they can get away with, not infrequently gambling that the rig will stay up just until the finish line is crossed, and - they're betting against the house. Not smart! I don't think that they are the best example of 'typical' rig engineering and usage; seems to me that they'd lie outside the statistical norm both in their design and use, intentionally. AAMOF, it is a testament to the old saw about "Someone looking out for Drunkards and Fools" that as many stay up as long as they do, IMO. :) Shrouds off of midship 'sprits??? WTH will they think of next???
"Normal" or "regular" sailboats should indeed only on the very, very absolutely rarest of occasions suffer a rig failure, especially to the point of a dismasting occurring. Even on 'cheap' sailboats, the rig and associated fittings/gear is usually much stronger than it really needs to be, and so dismastings of regularly maintained and cared-for rigs would be a vanishingly small number. You would be much more likely to get hit by lightning - or a stinkpot - than to suffer a rig/fitting/spar failure on a boat where proper attention has been paid to the rig and its constituent parts.
That said, in my experience and observation, very, very few rigs meet that "regularly maintained and cared for" standard. Most are so neglected that if they were an engine, there would be no way to get them started without an overhaul. :)
Peace, my sailing brethren!
On edit: PS - A round of Grog to all, on me. :)
Thanks CapnK,
She was a blast to sail for the minute I got to last year. Hopefully this will be a nice long season. Here is another picture just because.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rqLNS-z1IIU/SPwdaDgURjI/AAAAAAAAJAw/6EvnC3VnCh0/s800/Dicks%20Bolero%20Photos%20-%2010-18%20-%2007_cr.jpg)
I think the frustration for me comes from the way Engineless Sailing threads get hauled off topic. newt said"
Quote1. This is not a thread about whither engines are good or not. We all use sailboats, hopefully all sail them. Sails good, engines stinky and usually bad.
Actually this isn't a thread about engines at all. Here is the original post.
Quote from: WF on May 14, 2008, 02:35:58 PM
I was having conversation with someone today about my long term aspirations of going engineless. Please note that this is LONG TERM, I certainly don't feel my seamanship is enough for it now without safety suffering severely. However, one day I'd very much like to completely end my dependence on oil/diesel.
Forgive me if this has been covered, if so I guess I'll just take the lashes, couldn't be worse than my strict Catholic boarding school days.
My question is: Who here sails without an engine? What are your thoughts on this? Just how accomplished do those who are engineless think one should be before taking this leap? Anyone have plans to eventually do so?
Here is some good information, although a bit cocky & purist, on this subject. http://www.oarclub.org/
The original poster was looking for guidance from people who have experience sailing engineless. This is the only thread on sailfar.net that I could fine devoted to sailing engineless. So maybe if we stayed a bit on topic and avoided the E-word things would settle down. After all, there are many threads available to discuss the merits of engines.
So I will talk about maximizing sailing time and for me that means sail area. And lots of it. I was a bit worried when I move up from my small 24 foot Bluenose Sloop (ah forum name mystery solved) to my modified 30 foot Shields. But she came through with flying colors.
This is a shot from my last fall sail on my haulout day (as is the photo above).
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_rqLNS-z1IIU/SPqPvp0hzQI/AAAAAAAAI-I/UOo9_3cA5mw/s800/Bolero%20Fall%20Haul%20Out-%2010-18%20-%2005_1024.jpg)
I almost always get to sail downwind against the incoming current on my way out of Fisherman Bay on Lopez. It usually looks something like this (the straight line is the way out and the tacking is coming home)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_rqLNS-z1IIU/SJs3-Csio7I/AAAAAAAAGN0/iapGoTZbYys/s800/Fishbay%20Entrance%20-%20Coastal%20Explorer.jpg)
On this day the wind was quite light. Made it out nicely and actually had a reasonable turn of speed even in the light wind.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_rqLNS-z1IIU/SPqPvA_sRwI/AAAAAAAAI-A/iC12cfIbpb4/s800/Bolero%20Fall%20Haul%20Out-%2010-18%20-%2006_1024.jpg)
So from my experience I would say that if anyone wants to maximize their sailing time they want a boat with a very, very healthy SA/D ratio. I'm talking raceboat type numbers. Maybe an old racer-cruiser. Something that feels great in light air with her blade jib up. That way if you need to hank on something big you are really looking for light air performance.
For me sail area gives me choices and options. I don't have a wind speed meter but I am guess that in the above picture the wind is less than 5 kts. With a speed over ground (still a bit of current in my face) of 2.4 kts there isn't too much for me to worry about. And with the wind so light the sea condition is glassy and it is actually quite a beautiful way to sail.
Well now to strictly answere the question as to who here sails enginless I have to say no I don't. However if the questions was who has sailed enginless I would say I have. My first boat did not have an engine however she did have sweeps and also the ability to be sculled very efficiently. When going out narrow passages with wind on the nose sculling was the means of propulsion if alone. If three on board then the sweeps could be deployed.
As for experience before going enginless, that is really something that each skipper has to work out. I and friends on first boat learned as you go but then when you are young with a metal boat_____. Funny thing didn't give the motor thing a thought,how it is why should we.
For me today I just like boating and don't really care how I accomplish that goal. First priority is to sail and the longer the tack the better but I do enjoy making a coarse around a set of buoys if they present themselves. Rail under in 10ft pacific swells great. Gosting along on flat water in the evening nice. HOWEVER if there is no air I will never pass up chance to hop on board crank the iron jenny a putter around. And yes current boat sculles ok, not great but ok. Nothing quite so worthwhile as messing about in small boats or large ones.
I know that this thread is pretty far removed from the original but I was still thinking about the first post and what it takes to sail engineless. My first thoughts go to systems and boat types and all that sort. But in reality I think the origin is something quite different.
I think to sail engineless you really need to be quite odd. I don't mean eccentric or quirky, I mean kind of whacked. Certainly as measured by today's standard. Because there is no denying that having an engine adds an immense amount of convenience and comfort to boating. It is also true that all of those odd combination of winds and tides and mishaps present a challenge to the engineless sailor.
For me, fully embraced in oddness, I see the challenges and inconveniences as my reason to sail. I relish in the experience of finding solutions to challenging problems. Finding a second, third, etc solution to the what-ifs. If I am planning to go somewhere and I don't make it, I know that when I do get there, I have accomplished something using my own skills.
So I don't really think it is a seamanship issue, those skills will come, I think it is an attitude. I desire to do something that seems crazy in today's environment. It is very possible and doable just scary at first since you will likely be setting out in a direction without a lot of peer support.
In my own experience it has been, and continues to be, a very, very rewarding jouney.
Cheers and Happy Sailing,
Bill
Lopez Island, WA
Launch Day: 19 May 2009
Bill,
I've been following this thread with interest. and love the pics of your boat 8)
Quote from: Bluenose on April 19, 2009, 11:57:44 AMIt is also true that all of those odd combination of winds and tides and mishaps present a challenge to the engineless sailor.
For me, fully embraced in oddness, I see the challenges and inconveniences as my reason to sail.
Sounds reason enuf to me 8)
Bluenose... I love your last post.Pretty well somes it up...and in a way NO ONE can debate. I have an OB ...although most would consider it undersized. I have no intentions of not having one but reading your last post has made me think of sailing on Fanshawe Lake in London Ontario 25 yrs ago. I didn't have the time to spare the 1 1/2 hour drive to Lake Huron at the time so I joined the sailing club there which was only a 10 minute drive. It had a 'no engine' policy. We kept our boats on a trailer, launched and sailed on/off the dock. I found it a terrifying experience at first even though I had been sailing a while. There was a gentleman there, aged 82, that had an ole Oday mariner.He was a absolute pleasure to watch. He would pass most boats sailing and could dock his boat gracefully with ease. I learned more about sailing that year than any other. I'd be so outta practice now that I'd probably take out 3 boats trying...but I remember it being easier than I thought after a while. Any hoot....good for ya and have a grog. Glad you've taken that approach. I'm sure you'll be the guy that others watch ..sailing "gracefully with ease" ;)
My last vessel was a Bristol Sailstar 19...very similar to the O'Day Mariner...and, believe it or no, it was my cruising home for three very fun, challenging, years. Living on the hook, engineless the entire time, not low tech, but NO tech...hibachi for cooking, driftwood for fuel, candles for light. In those days it was entirely possible to buy $20 worth of supplies and wave bye-bye to the civs for weeks. Now I l/a my Cherubini Hunter 27, which to some is far too small to live aboard, but as a sizeable man who has learned to enjoy life on a 19 footer, by comparison the 27 foot ~Wind Dancer~ is luxurious. And yet!...I long to make my present boat dedazz simple as the last, and what I wrestle with is whether to go engineless again. I prefer the aesthetics of a clean, green, minimalist lean cruiser, but the Yanmar GM1 8hp is economical, about as unkillable as an anvil, and that appeals to me. On the other hand I like simplicity, independence from fossil fuel, maintenance, spare parts, the extra room...hmm
I loved the little Universal M2-12 diesel on my Com-Pac, but have never looked back since getting this Ariel with it's 6hp outboard-in-a-well. I really really really wish I could find a 3hp'ish engine that was geared and propped for a displacement boat, like the old Seagulls. Just enough to push the boat at hull speed in fairly calm weather is all I want... Going to experiment with that somewhat this summer - using my dinghy outboard (and if I get the chance to make one, a yuloh). It still isn't geared and propped right, but I just want to see how I get by with a very minimalist engine. There are times it can be handy to hear the dinosaurs scream... ;)
LOL its not like we were really tring to cruise with out an engine it just happen that way. The good thing is now that our boat is safe at the marina I figured out what I need to fix it.
Because we are use to sailing without the motor I'm sure we will use it as little as possible.
Laura and I sail both ways ;) ;)
We have three sailboats that have no engines- a couple of Dolphin Srs and an 18 foot open trimaran (used to sail a Prindle 18), and one that does.
We sailed and cruised on the Prindle, all over the bay systems on the Texas coast. We currently have our 18 foot trimaran, which has no engine nor provisions for one, and have sailed two Texas 200 events using that boat-400 miles of hard sailing.
We are currently at 10 months and around 2500 miles on a prolonged cruise on our outboard powered 25 footer, currently anchored off Rock Sound, Eleuthera. This after traversing the entire gulf coast, across the Gulf Stream, and through the Berry's and Exumas.
I can say with total assurance that had we no engine, we would not be sitting here. We have had so much adverse wind over the trip, which required either motoring, or motor sailing, or just not going, that we'd probably still be in Bimini-or even Florida.
We try hard to sail as much as we can, but f'r instance- you are NOT going to sail the ICW through Eastern Texas and western Louisiana- ain't gonna happen. And offshore there is nasty- thousands of oil rigs, shallow waters and head winds.
So, yeah, sailing around, on weekend cruises is neat engineless. And sailing open ocean is also great. But the fact is, in many places you simply cannot get in under sail with any degree of safety these days. Nassau Harbor comes to mind. Cruise ships, inter-island freighters, harbor ferries, you name it. Can you do it? Probably. Can you do it safely? that's another question.
So from my point of view, sail when you can, and when you can't, use the iron wind. Treat the boat as AN AUXILLIARY sailboat ;D ;D
The 1st mate and I decided to experiance every thing that could go wrong on our shake down voyage and get it out of the way. ::) we never had an engine on our-22 while sailing the lake, but for our coastal sailing I learnd you want to have it nore to get ungrounded. ;D
Funny how folks get into 'control mode'...when I felt my lifelines were a hazard and took them down, strangers went out of their way to demand explanations...when I removed the 'privacy bulkheads' from the interior, more than one person became High Priest of Teak and warned how altering design and balance of internal stresses would lead to disaster...instead of paying thru the nose for awlgrip I laid adhesive traction strips made for shower/bath use...from the reaction you'd have thought I'd run over a nun...when someone learned I had a chute and not a series drogue, he informed me that not only was I doomed to death, but that he was glad I didn't carry EPIRB so his taxes wouldn't be wasted saving me...! I'ts been a while since I had the 'doomed without an engine' debate, especially since my current vessel -has- an engine, I've gotten a pass... -all- my previous SVs were unpowered, back to when Beatles were still a band, yet, I still live...pining away for the lost lotus fields of the TX ICW...alas, alas ;^)
BTW I'm surprised no one on the thread mentioned the strongest argument IMO to -have- an auxiliary engine...an incapacitating accident, injury or medical emergency :^( All the sailing confidence in the world is checkmated by a broken leg...
How is having an engine to going to help if you have, say, a heart attack, sustain a severe head injury, get sick (like severe infection)?
It is my personal viewpoint that placing an engine in the "safety net" category is false security, period. An engine should, in my opinion, be seen solely as convenience and NOTHING more - helpful but never, EVER 'needed' or 'relied upon' for the safety of vessel or crew.
YMMV.
"It is my personal viewpoint that placing an engine in the "safety net" category is false security, period. An engine should, in my opinion, be seen solely as convenience and NOTHING more - helpful but never, EVER 'needed' or 'relied upon' for the safety of vessel or crew."
........don't hold back...tell us how you really feel ;D :o :D
yet, I still live...pining away for the lost lotus fields of the TX ICW...alas, alas ;^)
;D ;D
Lotus fields???Au contraire- just some nasty hard miles to put behind you heading from Texas to points east. And if you happen to reside Texas you kinda MUST put them behind on the way to the Bahamas. ;)
You really have three choices-
Do the boring, long, listen to the engine number, through the most congested with commercial traffic part of the entire ICW, much much heavier than anywhere east credoast.
Go off shore and pound to weather against the prevailing SE winds for some 500 miles or so, sailing through a total mine field of oil rigs- Thousands of them.
Or put the boat on a trailer and do 700 miles to windward via interstate. We don't own a trailer.
Laura and I tried number two once- nasty days- we came back in and motored.
Once past New Orleans, you find waters where you CAN sail, and we do. In fact we always rejoice when we clear the Florida Ave bridge jus,t past Industrial lock and are clear of the crappy part.
As I said in my first post- Use the boat as an AUXILIARY, which is pretty much what Smollet is saying.
In some areas, it just ain't worth the hassle to try to sail. But when it IS possible, certainly do so. Much more pleasant that way ;D
There is another way....
Charlie and Captain- you view for a minute... What about sweeps? I used to have a Catalina 27 that I would row out of the harbor. Not that easy, but I was able to travel. As I see it, the only place I really cannot sail is crowded marinas/ harbor areas. If a boat is less than say 8k displacement, would you think it crazy to get rid of the engine an put in sweeps? At what displacement do you think they become impractical?
For a moment I had an urge to post but like a bad dream the urge suddenly left me. I feel much better now, thank you.
Good sailing to you all, may the winds be in your favor for another day, Melvin
I should also say I carry a paddle on both my Chrysler C-26&C-22 and it always starts on first pull.
IIRC, the Pardeys had their 17500# or so sailboat set up for sculling and rowing. No engine, of course. They could move her at about 1.5 kts in calm waters. They make good arguments against having an engine. I figure if you can sail 200,000 nm w/o an engine, it can't be that necessary. That said, anyone w/o an engine should plan well, be set up for sculling/rowing, and have VERY good ground tackle. Of course, these are all a good idea even with an engine if you're doing serious cruising...
OTOH, engineless cruising and schedules are largely incompatible. Also, many modern harbors and marinas, assume you have an engine and aren't very friendly to approach by sail. (But many of those harbors are well worth skipping, and who needs marinas anyway? ;) )
I'm getting ready for a primarily on the hook existence, increasing water capacity to 200gal+, coasthop in search of secluded anchorages where I can still connect wireless, the internet biz that has paid my bills will go even further...sailing goals in a nutshell. I just like the idea of a starkly simple boat and the problemsolving of respecting the forces at work and still achieving your aim. I think the average sailor who finds their crutch has conked out suddenly finds himself having to think a lot longer and account for a lot more factors as well as throw their schedule out the window. Here's the flash: some people LIKE thinking about sailing that way...some people don' NEED no steenkeeng schedules. Anyway...747 pilots have a real good argument against hanggliders, but their sermon ends at the edge of a cliff :^)
Great thread. On my first boat, the engine, an old Palmer, blew a head gasket and I didn't get around to fixing it for over a year. Kept sailing, got to most of the places I'd visited in previous years, sailed in and out of the Port Townsend Boat Haven. Fisherman's Bay was a challenge so hats off to Bluenose. Used to stand at the bow with my thumb out to get a tow through the PT canal when the tide was against! But definitely became a much better sailor.
What finally got me to fix the engine was being becalmed in the shipping lanes, at dusk, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Was a long slog rowing against the current. I finally collapsed in the cockpit and was very grateful for a tow into port the next morning. Unsettling but not really dangerous.
But I think going engineless in the PNW, with its strong currents and fickle summer winds, takes a boat that sails really well...and lots of patience. With the skipjack, which didn't sail well to weather and was awkward to row, after a couple of seasons of trying to do everything under sail and getting very frustrated, I finally learned to love motorsailing.
But like someone said, it's more a matter of convenience than safety. After being teased by an old fisherman out on the west coast of Vancouver island about having to wear rain gear and sweaters all summer, I added a wheelhouse. Puttering along at four five knots, under sail - or power- what a delight. But I still love to sail among the rock piles and between the little islands, drop the hook under sail and sail away in the morning.
Here on the East Coast, in the New York- Long Island sound area, what really makes life miserable when there isn't much wind is all the stinkpot wakes. I hate to imagine my state of mind, not to mention the state of the galley, if I couldn't fire up my little outboard on the Ariel to point the bow or the stern at the wake. But oars would do the same thing.
Quote from: AdriftAtSea on May 16, 2008, 06:34:36 AM
Actually, the Panama Canal requires a minimum full ahead boat speed of EIGHT knots as seen in this document (http://www.pancanal.com/eng/maritime/notices/2008/n01-2008.pdf). This is due to the time required to transit the canal and scheduling the opening and closing of the locks. There are some pretty massive fees for boats that can not make the minimum transit times IIRC.
Most boats of the sailfar mentality would have issues making the minimum requirements, powered or not. Eight knots is greater than hull speed on many of the boats represented here at sailfar.
I recently talked to a fellow that has done 3 Panama Canal crossings on his 31 ft boat. He said that yes, they have this minimum boat speed requirement, and you pretty much have to say you can do it, but they don't really enforce it. They certainly did not fine
him.
I think he even mentioned sailing part of the way due to mechanical failure (either his boat or on another boat, I cannot remember), but that may have been a different waterway than the PC.
YMMV, and who knows. I'd be the one they fine if they chose to make an example. >:(
I still like the option of trucking across Panama and not dealing with the canal at all. That same fellow trucked his boat across the US from California last time, and he said it was FAR easier and a bit less expensive than he was expecting it to be.
By the way - he bought the hull and deck and finished the boat from there, so taking down the rig, etc, was not something that intimidated him. That boat has been around the world with numerous ocean crossings. When discussing his future plans, he talks about sailing across the Atlantic to Africa like I talk about going to the grocery store.
On topic for the thread: he's not engineless, and does not really sail much unless offshore.
M?der ?ron did the Panama Canal in his 19' Carina back in 2007. They charged him an extra $840 because he couldn't make the minimum speed; but they later refunded it.
http://www.meder.hu/eng/Pana070326Fiji071114E.htm
If I haven't already done so in this thread ( I ain't gonna scan 6 pages to see ;D) I would point out that while Lin and Larry Pardey DO sail engineless, they have pointed out or commented many many times in articles about being TOWED into or out of ports by other yachtsmen who DID have engines. So they do use engines- just other peoples and not their own.
I must also add that I have the utmost respect for them and their lifestyle. They have been a continuing success and goal to strive for, for others for years. I've learned a lot from their stories and books.
Quote from: CharlieJ on September 20, 2010, 04:21:08 PM
If I haven't already done so in this thread ( I ain't gonna scan 6 pages to see ;D) I would point out that while Lin and Larry Pardey DO sail engineless, they have pointed out or commented many many times in articles about being TOWED into or out of ports by other yachtsmen who DID have engines. So they do use engines- just other peoples and not their own.
You have mentioned it before in this thread or somewhere else, and it is a very good point.
But I want to play a bit of a semantic game just for fun, and building on Haidan's point, too.
I think there is a BIG difference between having an engine to move around tight quarters where it is the prudent thing to do and having a mindset that the sails are only for when it's convenient/easy. In my view, the Pardey's ARE sailing engineless, even if they do employ someone's engine occasionally.
I am talking about a mindset that has us working WITH nature, rather than trying to 'motor' through her. For example, how do we respond if the wind dies below 5 kts. Do we fire up the engine? What contrasting philosophies drive the answer to that question?
(1) Ghosting along in light air is too slow; fire up the iron jib either to fit an outside schedule or to satisfy personal impatience.
(2) Ghosting along at 1 kt or so is enjoyable sailing...working with the wind and gaining what miles we can using no fuel, causing no pollution and with the satisfaction of keeping her moving in challenging conditions.
I guess I am saying that many of us sailors don't just motor occasionally when prudent (for safety sake) but motor for convenience. Someone here at the marina recently mentioned motoring across to the Bahamas because using the sails is just to much work (and this same person yelled at me for not having roller furling to make sailing easier).
Our boat has an engine. I doubt we will ever BE engineless. But we can certainly sail with an engineless mindset (and seek to develop our sailing skills accordingly) knowing that the engine is there for those times when it is prudent to run it, not just because it is the 'easy' way out of whatever is deemed to be 'less than ideal' conditions.
And of course, the ICW changes the game COMPLETELY. ;D
Agreed. In fact I'd offer that -- in my case -- having an in-built generator supports sailing in light air. I can charge the batteries without too much noise and heat on just a liter of fuel per hour and am not tempted to run the engine in light air and motor sail in order to load the engine while charging.
On the other hand, one can have more wind (and seas) than are desirable. Then I'd rather have Adam aboard than a generator.
I had a `59 Cheoy Lee Frisco Flyer Type I that I used to scull off the stern. Worked fine to a point. For getting in/out of a marina slip and into the bay it was great. But even in that light boat, best speed was still only about 1/2 knot.
It's funny. Back in the days when I could actually find the time to sail (grumble), I'd use about two (6 gallon) tanks of gas a year. The first gallon or two for puttering in and around the marina for 90% of the sailing season. And the rest when I found myself 60-80 miles from home at the end of my annual 1-2 week sailing trip and the wind invariably died out for the last couple days of vacation. Just like clockwork.
What a depressing way to end vacation ... 12+ hours in front of the stupid outboard. I guess it was good, though, 'cause it put me in the proper mood to return to work. :-\
Going engineless really is a lifestyle choice. In most cases, probably an unemployed lifestyle choice. As a culture we are goal and schedule driven. It's not so easy to break out of that mindset.
Sometimes it's also the only way to actually GET somewhere. Laura and I don't LIKE motoring, but on a long term basis, for coastal cruising, (NOT ocean passages), it's pretty much a necessity.
We crossed from the Exumas to Eleuthera in a dead flat calm- 56 miles under power. Only window we had between foul winds ( not bad winds, just wrong).
Hatchet Bay, Eleuthera to Rose Island (off Nassau) we motor sailed. light winds- good, but light.
Nassau to Gun Cay, across the Great Bahama Bank (90 miles I think) we motor sailed the first day, anchored on the bank overnight and sailed the second day.
Coming back from the Bahamas we crossed the stream both sailing and motor sailing- 48 miles Gun Cay to Fowey Rocks. We had a light north wind and the next day was heavier-from the north. How long should we sit at anchor off Gun waiting for that north wind to go away?
We've run the engine far more than we'd have liked in our year of travel, but then had we been engineless we'd still be in Florida and would never have made it to the Bahamas.
OH- and a friend of ours left Ft Myers Beach bound for Port O'Conner Texas- 900 nautical mile on the rhumb line, but unable to sail the rhumb line due to the oil spill.
TEN days at sea singlehand. Laura was watching weather and he had isobars 900 miles apart- in other words, a dead flat calm for most of the crossing. He got in with about 2 gallons of diesel left in his tanks. How long would he have been out there engineless? During the beginnings of hurricane season by the way.
I still maintain that some times and places you can pretty well do without. Laura and I sailed this bay of ours for years in engineless boats, still do in fact in our 18 foot trimaran. But I surely wouldn't want to try our coastal cruise without one, thank you. We sail when we can, motor sail if needed, and run the engine if we have too.
That's true Charlie. I fully agree. It's possible to go engineless, with proper planning and prep. it might even be prudent...but far from convenient and some places downright dangerous.
The english Channel and Brittany waters come to my mind. Tidal streams > 4 knots in a smallish boat withi?ut engine. ::)
still, somehow they managed before engines... (B.E.) ??? at least most of the time. They managed without GPS too, most of the time. Not too many wanting to switch back though.
loll Yep- one of my favorite books is "Wandering Under Sail" by Hiscock. In it he tells of his very early voyages, before he and Susan got together. He had oars. But in Wanderer III, they decided eventually, that the 8 HP engine just wasn't enough in some of the places they wanted to go. They simply were not safe trying to come in underpowered. So he upgraded.
But he certainly sailed a LOT of miles engineless. And for longer ocean passages, I see no reason not to. On Tehani, if we were crossing oceans instead of coasting, I'd put about a 4 HP in the lazzerette, just for getting into and out of ports. But for coasting, we sure like our 8 HP Yamaha. Although it IS too heavy. I wish they'd make a 4 stroke TWO cylinder 4 hp outboard- we'd buy one. But the smallest 2 cylinder we could find was the 6 HP Yamaha, and it's the same engine as our 8HP, with a different carb. Same weight, so didn't make sense to lose 2 HP.
Single cylinder engines just run too roughly for me.
Re- the Pardeys....
don't get me wrong here, I really, really like their books, and I got a lot of inspiration from them..... BUT,
I have also heard from more than one individual, that they quite frequently are known to be found adrift outside an entrance, towing line in hand, on their foredeck 'begging' for a tow.
I have no idea if that's true, or simply 'talking with two tongues' from jealous and narrow-minded people.
Hiscock's books are great too, and of course Moitessier. :)
I've only crossed paths once with the Pardey's while cruising and watching them sail into a crowded harbor in winds so light that they seemed non existent was something of a eureka moment for me as to just how much one can get out of a sail if you really know what you are doing.
The nub of the matter is that people do love to gossip and put people down and I'd classify most of the negative stuff about the Pardey's as just that. Most people I have talked to who swore that such and such a thing happened when confronted about such stuff will tell you it was a friend of a friend of a friend who heard it from a dude who heard about it in a bar.
Since we swapped our internal combustion engine for an electric drive I've noticed a definite improvement in our overall sailing ability, a sense of being safer and an empowerment (and we are not new to sailing) that would only be greater if we were engineless... Not for everyone of course but the more you sail the better you get and every time you turn on an engine you lose an opportunity to get that little bit better.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
Quote from: LooseMoose on September 23, 2010, 09:12:15 AM
I've only crossed paths once with the Pardey's while cruising and watching them sail into a crowded harbor in winds so light that they seemed non existent was something of a eureka moment for me as to just how much one can get out of a sail if you really know what you are doing.
The nub of the matter is that people do love to gossip and put people down and I'd classify most of the negative stuff about the Pardey's as just that. Most people I have talked to who swore that such and such a thing happened when confronted about such stuff will tell you it was a friend of a friend of a friend who heard it from a dude who heard about it in a bar.
Agree on that! absolutely.... and good to be able to
draw a line over that gossip stuff. Thanks for confirming they are as 'humble and real people' as they seem to be ;) a grog to you for that!
I typed another (too wordy) reply and scrapped it.
Instead, I offer this counter example...sailboat in name only. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiYpwwiIQuw) SINO - we see 'em all the time around here, also referred to as a motorboat with a mast.
Sorry, I just don't get it...at least one scene shown had good sailing wind (beam or close reach it looked like) and no sail up. ??? C'mon, guys, at least motorsail! Get a few "free" knots and save some of the owner's fuel.
I stick to my position that it is a mindset, a philosophy, about SAILING and not about whether or not one has (or uses) an engine.
There are few places one cannot go under sail given the time to wait for proper conditions. The deciding issue is an EXTERNAL one...the schedule. One does not need to be a purest, though.
Charlie, I maintain both you and Hiscock CAN sail into/out of just about any situation...any of us can become 'engineless' at any time (mechanical failure, fuel depletion, etc) and therein lies the difference, in my mind at least. You can do it if NEEDED; the folks that make me shake my head are the ones that rely on the engine without developing the skills to not "need" it.
Does that make sense?
I've been reading this thread with more than passing interest..Let me introduce you to my shipmate MacTed, (http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk136/highandry_photos/Voyage%202009-11/001-11.jpg) a a picture paints a thousand words of zero oil pressure, (oil pump failure) a seized engine in virtually zero wind and a desperate 2 hours for me while I worked her clear of a rocky Spanish headland with sails hardly drawing..
I sailed her for 10 hours back to the nearest place of safety, a marina and horrified the locals by romping through the entrance under full sail. No option, a big sea at the harbour entrance and shallows under my lee. I let the sails run and kicked the brake off the anchor windlass and she stopped in 6 metres just before we hit the inside of the breakwater.
To re-engine in Spain is outside my financial limits. I had to think about the close on two thousand mile voyage home to England under sail alone. Why not? I've sailed from San Juan Puerto Rico singlehanded to just in sight of the Isles of Scilly without using the engine..36 days...but..I had the engine if I needed it, a big psychological difference I feel.
The Gibraltar strait, shipping separation zones at Cape St Vincent and the Channel approaches round my own coastline are busy and dangerous places at times even with an engine . Not to mention channel tides and the rocky coast of Cornwall..So I'm negotiating a voyage home on the back of an articulated lorry.. :D I don't feel bad about that, I feel it is the seamanlike decision. I've little time for sailing folk who knowlingly or because of the lack proper planning put themselves in danger to the extent where they have to rely on the rescue services to fish them out. I've nothing against engineless sailing, I admire people that do it but having been becalmed with a Maltese registered 35,000 ton bulk carrier altering course towards me and obviously not seeing me at 2 miles in broad daylight...i don't have the courage to try to get home without the happy thump of the iron jib.. ;D regards Saxon.
The following is an excerpt of the first four paragraphs of Chapter 21, The Auxiliary Engine, of Eric Hiscock's book "Cruising Under Sail", Second Edition 1965.
"A reliable auxiliary engine enables a yacht to maintain a reasonable average speed in light winds and calms, and to enter or leave harbour under almost any conditions of wind and tide; it will assist her to get away from a lee shore, a tide race, or any other dangerous situation, and it will allow her cruising range to be extended with the certainty of being able to return to her home port at the desired time. If, then, we consider that the main objects of cruising are to visit a large number of places or cover many miles in the shortest possible time and with the least physical and mental effort, the engine must be regarded as an essential part of the cruising yacht?s equipment.
But, as I hope I have shown in previous chapters, much of the pleasure of cruising is to be had by getting the best possible performance out of the yacht under sail in all conditions, and by overcoming any difficulties that are met with by skillful seamanship. Certainly the cruises most worth reading about, and therefore most worth doing, are those which were undertaken by yachts without engines, or during which the engines were only used in calms when time was running short. The phrase ?and so we had to start the engine? has become a common place in the accounts of cruises one reads today, but in most of the instances mentioned the crew did not have to start the engine; they started it either because they had allowed the yacht to get into some awkward or dangerous situation which should have been avoided by good seamanship, or because the wind failed or came ahead or the tide was foul, and it obvious that the destination could not be reached under sail alone for some considerable time, perhaps not until after nightfall. Admittedly there are few people who would choose to lie and roll becalmed within sight of a peaceful haven in preference to running the engine for a short time; but in cruising, as in mountaineering (to which it is much akin) the easy way is not always the best, and I am convinced that those who so readily use their engines to save themselves trouble or to avoid every little difficulty with which they are confronted, fail to obtain the full pleasure and satisfaction from their sport.
From this it should not be assumed that I wish to disparage auxiliary engines. I have raised this matter because I know that many a cruising man is missing one of the most important points of cruising --- the feeling of achievement which can only be got by regarding the yacht purely as a sailing vessel and the engine merely as a form of insurance to get him back to his shore engagements when the wind fails, or for use in canals and small artificial harbours in which a yacht under sail alone cannot maneuver without some risk to herself and others. It is sometimes said that as sailing yachts used such places once they can do so today, and with greater ease because they are more handy; but when sail was the only form of motive power, the difficult places were generally provided with facilities which are now absent; warping buoys were placed where needed, and there were huffleers to take and make fast lines or give a tow; also the harbours were not so crowded then.
Valuable, therefore, as an auxiliary engine undoubtedly is, it is well to emphasize that it is not always essential; indeed, I would most strongly recommend the newcomer to the sport to spend at least his first season in a small yacht without one, for only in that way can he learn seamanship and self-reliance; he should, however, remember that the man who chooses to sail without an engine has no right to beg a tow, and only when in a real fix ought he to accept the offer of one."
That Hiscock fella seems like he might know a little something about cruising! ;D
We had to sail back to the boat yard for a replacement pump on the Endeavour 32 and thought it was no big deal to sail right up to the face dock...well it was funny to be ask by everyone there if we had an engine. I think we were asked 5 times in the 2 days and just said that we are still not accustomed to useing it and will wait untill we can better practice. I could tell they were still suprised when we hoisted the main and sailed away.
Its also the best way to keep the C-26 close behind.
Thank-you for posting that, Chattcatdaddy. Grog for you.
These are points that not only have been made here on sailfar, but also the ones made by the Pardey's and a bunch of other people.
Quote from: Chattcatdaddy on November 18, 2010, 02:50:11 AM
"If ... the main objects of cruising are to visit a large number of places or cover many miles in the shortest possible time and with the least physical and mental effort, the engine must be regarded as an essential part of the cruising yacht?s equipment.
The phrase ?and so we had to start the engine? has become a common place in the accounts of cruises one reads today, but in most of the instances mentioned the crew did not have to start the engine;
... in cruising, as in mountaineering (to which it is much akin) the easy way is not always the best, and I am convinced that those who so readily use their engines to save themselves trouble or to avoid every little difficulty with which they are confronted, fail to obtain the full pleasure and satisfaction from their sport."
{emphasis added}
I love this stuff...basically, if I might paraphrase - "you get out of something what you are willing to put into it."
No doubt that to some, the 'get there quick, see a site or two and leave to the next one' is a satisfying way to travel. I say, more power to them.
But it truly stinks that that is taken as "the norm," and those among us willing to slow down, work WITH wind and tide, not complain because we "cannot leave today cuz the wind is from the East" are seen as the worst kind of exception (the kind with no basis in 'practical reality').
I'll never actually cruise on an engineless boat, but as I've said before, that does not stop me from adopting an engineless mindset, taking the engine as a convenience but NEVER relying on it as a safety net.