Since I have access to such a depth of experience here (including some shipwrights) I'll take advantage and run my proposed Spring project up the flagpole instead of following my natural path and forging ahead without heed to possible consequences...
The one thing I can definitively say I am unsatisfied with aboard Carita is the tightness of the forepeak and vee berth area. At 6'4", getting in or out requires a peformance worthy of cirque du soleil. Once I am embedded I am comfortable enough in a slightly fetal position, however the problem compounds in that I have reached the age where I rarely make it all the way through the night without at least one visit to the head, whence the whole process starts over again albeit in the dark and trying not to disturb the soundly sleeping Admiral, who at a diminutive 5'4" has no issues whatsoever. I'm sure you get the idea.
The saloon berth is plenty long and wide, although as a long term solution sleeping separately from my wife will never cut it, and Carita was definitely purchased with the long term in mind.
My proposed KISS solution is such....I believe it should be a simple matter to remove the forward starboard bulkhead and extend the bunk on that side out into where the closet is now, offering not only extra length for yours truly to strectch out and slumber but extra headroom under the coachroof at that end to make ingress and egress infintely less complicated.
Although initially queasy at the idea of removing bulkheads, after much rational (although admittedly uneducated) thought I do not believe there to be a structural issue and the offender in question currently serves as a mere divider. The next set of bulkheads aft (where the saloon ends and the coachroof drops in height) is where the pressure of the mast and shrouds is borne. The corner I am looking at has nothing above it, has a pre-formed stiffening member built into the header and bears no compression post - As near as I can tell it's just a removeable wall.
I freely admit this is just gut feeling and in practice I don't really know anything, so any and all learned opinions are wlecomed and appreciated. Thanks in advance!
This may not work in your particular situation, but is generally related so I'll toss it out to you as an idea to consider...
One of my former boats, a Dutch-built Contest 25 had an interesting design feature: With its limited cabin volume and a galley to port there was only enough room remaining for a settee of about 4'-6" long between it and the main bulkhead. So it had a hinged panel in the bulkhead that would fold down into and across the hanging locker and rest on a ledge board, creating an opening through the bulkhead to extend the settee into a full-length/width berth. It has a special cushion to fit the extension. This allowed for double use of the spaces, that is, when you didn't need the berth (but only the settee), you had the full hanging locker. It also kept the rest of the bulkhead in place to perform its structural function. It had a couple tight-fitting flat bronze barrel bolts on the forward side of the bulkhead, which you accessed at the hanging locker.
Here's a [couple] photos of a similar opening panel (in the closed position) on the port side.
It is one way to create an opening only where (and when) you need it, and to leave the rest of a bulkhead intact.
This most likely will not be an option for you, because of the Admiral, but just in case.... turn the forepeak into something more useful than just sleeping quarters. Sleep in the main salon.
I've been doing it for 4 years now; granted, I'm single but I still have guests and haven't had any serious complaints yet.
For me, it seems like such a waste of space on a small boat to have a dedicated space to lie down in for a few hours each day.
Well, there's my .02, which when corrected for inflation, is about .0000002
This is what I was thinking. Maybe extending the berth on one side for you, and grabbing some space from the hanging locker. Only cutting an opening in the bulkhead as large as you need. (On the section view I show it at the head only to use the existing section drawing, but it would be on the opposite side). It wouldn't need a hinged panel (as shown in the pics below), but a built-in modification for berth extension., but the opening-in-a bulkhead concept would still apply.
Yabut!!!
Decent idea on the hinged panel- for putting feet into.
BUT
If I gather correctly, what he is proposing would be to lengthen the vee berth on one side, for his HEAD.. If he opened that bulkhead as on your example, he'd have to sleep with his feet in the opening, and his head at the little end of the berth.
Or have his head in a hole :)
From a boat builder and restorer point of view, if that bulkhead is truly non load bearing ( for the mast) I see no reason at all why that couldn't be done. I'd certainly do it if it were my boat.
But then ALL of my boats have either been totally built by me, or totally REBUILT by me ;)
Yep, Charlie, I was thinking that too...about feet first vs head. I agree that sticking your head into a 18" or 2-ft deep extension wouldn't work.
Yet if it's maybe 2 ft x 2 ft in cross section and only 8" deep...how much is that going to feel like a hole? If it's just extending a berth a bit for an especially tall owner, his eyes will be about where the extension starts, if not farther into the forward cabin.
Would even a non-mast load bearing bulkhead still have some stiffening function on the hull, deck, cabin trunk? Some of the older hull layups like Tehani and an Ariel are thick, but what about the newer/less hefty ones?
Could keep the bunk extension open to the locker and head space? Maybe have a small privacy door or curtain to draw over it if someone from main cabin is using the head at night. If it's just a couple on the boat, then keep it open.
I got the impression that the boat was a 1972 vintage? Right? Wrong? If right, she's a solidly built one also. I doubt the removal of that bulkhead would hurt a thing.
I'd REALLY like to see a picture though
Hey on a customers Catalina 27 I replaced a rotted out bulkhead between the head and main saloon. It was simply screwed in place- and it carried the chain plates!! Which is why it rotted- lax attention to caulking
And a buddy just rebuild the head compartment in a Watkins 27- that bulkhead simply floated in place- zero holding it to the sole. He could have removed the entire head compartment up to the main bulkhead and the boat would never know the difference
I had heard that especially the 1960s Alberg designs (Tritons, Ariels, A30s, etc.) had very heavy hull thickness. Maybe also true of the Dutch built Meridians. I have heard that some of the hulls got thinner especially after the 1973 oil embargo.
Anyway, it was just meant as a possible idea. And as I wrote, didn't know if it would work in this situation. Thought that I might have detected some reluctance to remove the entire bulkhead, and maybe bumping through it to gain 6" or 8" would be an option, and retain any possible structural benefit the bulkhead might be providing.
In some situations, depending on how you use the boat, it might be nice to retain the (existing) separate head, if you don't have to sacrifice too much. It does allow any crew to use the head separate from the forward cabin, and even gives one some privacy from a partner--maybe not an essential requirement, but nice, so that if you turn a light on it doesn't wake the other person up. Not an option in a Meridian, but might be in this 26 ft LOA boat?
I did the sketch on the interior for the Tidewater version of the boat, and the interior of this boat may be different.
Scaling the drawing that I used gave me a V-berth length of 6'-2 (or 3") which is not a generous berth length to begin with. My understanding is that 6'-6" is the standard minimum length (especially for this owner). [So maybe even a 4"-6" extension would be enough and that would reduce the hole effect further, and keep the hanging locker size as large as possible.]
I read something about the Watkins 27, which has a roomy main cabin, does have fairly tight access to the forward cabin.
If it was my boat I might try extending the starboard side V-berth (6 or 8") through the existing bulkhead, making cuts along the lines that I've marked up here, then apply teak trim around the openings and to beef up what is left of the upper bulkhead.
Maybe extend the berth to the existing cabinet and leave it open to the passageway normally, but also, as I wrote have a curtain (or panel) that you could close to separate it from the enclosed head when it is in use.
If I thought that there was enough structural benefit in preserving the bulkhead to make this worth the effort, I might give it a try. If it doesn't work and the alternative is removing the starboard side bulkhead anyway, then you haven't lost much.
I might consider taking some of the bulkhead off the port side of the opening to make it easier to get into the V-berth, possibly above the berth level (as the opening in the Meridians do).
Maybe keeping that bulkhead and having in effect a post/jamb at the starboard side of the doorway opening will be in the way and keep the access to the berth for you difficult and defeat your main purpose in making the changes, as I think you are also saying, Charlie. I can understand that.
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 07, 2014, 12:25:47 AM
I read something about the Watkins 27, which has a roomy main cabin, does have fairly tight access to the forward cabin.
My Watkins 27 does have a very tight access to the v berth. There is no storage under the v berth. The 40 gallon fresh water holding tank is under there.
FWIW, A Sabre 28 & 30 has an opening in the salon bulkhead on the starboard side so one can use the sette for a berth. Anything is possible if you own a sawzall ;D
I had the same issue. Here's the result. Remember the mechanics car never runs, Apull down window shade provides privacy when needed.
pic didn't make the previous post.
Quote from: misfits on March 07, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
FWIW, A Sabre 28 & 30 has an opening in the salon bulkhead on the starboard side so one can use the sette for a berth. Anything is possible if you own a sawzall ;D
Yep- you can cut anything with a sawzall-
Except a straight line ;D ;D ;D ;D
Have been giving this a bit more thought, and if you don't think that extending the starboard side berth through an opening doesn't open up access to the berth enough, one possibility might be to remove most of the upper part of the bulkhead along the lines of this sketch, leaving the portion below the berth intact, and also enough to support/stiffen the deck and cabin trunk. Since you already have 6'-3" or so of bunk length and may only need 6" or so to have enough length. leaving enough of the bulkhead (say 4" to 6") to act as a stiffener might not hurt.
Am posting a couple of photos of bulkheads that are cutout/opened up but do leave some material (plus strengthened by trim boards) to give support to the deck/cabin trunk. In both cases the mast (or mast post) is separate from the bulkhead, so it seems like these must be for cabin/deck support (and perhaps to tie the partial lower bulkheads together so it all acts a bit like a whole bulkhead).
If I wanted to open up access to the berth and extend its length, but didn't want to lose any structural/stiffening function, and the hull/deck/cabin trunk might be thinner than some of the older/more ruggedly built boats one here, I might consider trying something like this. As I look at these photos, I do agree that the interior does look more modern than most 1972/73 vintage boats that I've seen. As has been said, the boat should have a HIN molded in if it is newer than that.
If I had to make an assumption on hull strength and stiffness, personally, I'd feel more comfortable underestimating it and being wrong, than the other way around. As long as I could make modifications like this work.
Another detail plus is that the photo appears to show the cabin ceiling liner with a molding that was put in after the bulkhead (I assume that the hull liner may be similar), and if you take the bulkhead completely out, you will need to deal with that. Probably not enough reason to sway the decision either way, but might be a bonus to leaving a stiffener remnant intact?
Here is a photo of another example of what looks like a deck/cabin trunk stiffener/ stub bulkhead from a Sabre sailboat (as Misfits had mentioned).
Another photo of a Cape Dory 25 with a main bulkhead and a secondary one forward of it, with a much wider standard opening width to the V-berth than the Annapolis 26. Note that the upper part of the bulkhead is cut to provide some support of the cabin trunk roof (while still allowing access to and aft of the hatch above, and as much headroom there as possible, which is fairly low in a CD25 in general). One other feature that the photo shows is that to aid in getting into its similarly high V-berths, the platform for the head is extended and serves as a well-positioned step up. Maybe a similar step for your boat would help?
Again, this is just an idea for an option, if I had any doubts and wanted to redo things and yet retain as much as was practically possible.
The third photo doesn't really apply but seemed like a beautiful example of opening up a bulkhead above the cabinets/nav station/built-ins level. It's from a UK built Rival 32. The Meridian has a similar cutout shape to give you more opening width higher up, where you need it.
Wow...Tons of participation and insight - Thanks a bunch!
I can tell you that although my interior is more clean and modern than one would expect, the hull/deck construction is most definitely vintage. Incredibly thick and heavy - throwback to a time when oil was plentiful for sure. Carita has most definitely had an interior refit during her life, although I don't know exactly when.
I believe in the interest of the simplest solution usually being the correct one I am going to go with my initial gut feeling to just remove the bulkhead and extend the starboard berth. To be honest I'm kind of looking for an excuse to redo the whole mattress up there anyway. My 'backup' thinking is that in the off chance that I do start to detect any flex with the bulkhead removed I can always add a simple post which shouldn't interfere with the berth too much.
Jim has some excellent suggestions!
Kurt did a similar thing with Katie Marie, except the bulkhead was structural. He removed most of it, and built a very strong strut to bear the load of the mast step. When I when below the first time, it took my breath away (and no, it was not because of his $10 composting head experiment!).
Removing the bulkhead or part of it will open the boat up in ways you might not imagine. Katie Marie, an Ariel just like Faith, feels at least twice as large inside without the bulkhead.
I like Jim's suggested cut out lines, in post 14(?) but I would consider adding a beam above with some kind of stiffener just to be sure the bulkhead was not adding anything necessary to the structure.
Good luck!
I will throw in my solution to having the same problem in my Catalina 27. My wife and I like to sleep together and it was mighty tight in the forepeak. So ....... I removed the forward bulkheads and eliminated the head and the hanging locker altogether. I extended the forepeak all the way to the main bulkhead, made a removable plywood section for easy access to the middle area, made a small locker underneath out of the hanging locker doors, and still have storage where the head used to be. I found the room for the head and the hanging locker to be largely wasted space anyway. I also cut out part of the port side main bulkhead to make it easier to crawl in and give a nice sense of space. I don't believe there has been significant sacrifice structurally, especially since I had beefed up where the chainplate comes in. I have a porta pottie which we rarely use stored under the center section of my modifications. Sorry - no picture to send., but I can take pictures if you like the next time I go sailing. Good luck!
Quote from: s/v Faith on March 10, 2014, 11:11:42 PM
I like Jim's suggested cut out lines, in post 14(?) but I would consider adding a beam above with some kind of stiffener just to be sure the bulkhead was not adding anything necessary to the structure.
Good luck!
Thanks Craig. Reading that encouraged me to at least update the sketch to show the idea, FWIW. Again, I could imagine an opaque curtain on a sliding track to screen off the head compartment from the V-berth & extension (to offer privacy, especially to any guest entering from the main cabin) and shield those asleep in the V-berth from any light that might wake them.
There may not be a significant degradation of hull/deck strength/stiffness from removing the bulkhead, but if there is a practical way to extend the V-berth, and open up the access to it, and retain some of the bulkheads potential function and keeps things symmetrical in stiffness on both port and starboard, that seems (to me) like the best of both worlds. It's only offered as a discussion of an idea and a suggestion, and respect that boat owners must decide what they feel most comfortable doing.
I also thought about tying the (upper/under cabin trunk) stiffener across to the port side (remaining full-height) bulkhead, and would favor that, too, if it does not interfere with the deck hatch (become a head knocker hazard). In the drawings I used, the bulkhead is within the footprint of the hatch, but I believe that the drawings are for the earlier version, so maybe the hatch has been moved aft or forward clear of the bulkhead plane?
Jim - I almost feel guilty for putting you to so much work!
Great insight and CAD work! Man, I admire folks with talent...
Thanks, and you're welcome, Darren. No obligations. ;)
I enjoy discussing design issues and interesting challenges here, and it's easiest to express them graphically.
Have been continuing to think about this, and will share those thoughts, FWIW...
Without intending to sound too critical of the Annapolis 26, one idea for a cautious approach might be to hold off on the modification of the bulkhead for some period of time, to make sure that the other aspects of the boat will suit you over the long term. It's not uncommon for those that are new to cruising to go through a few boats in practice in order to find one that is a good fit. Since you are so tall, Darren (I think 6'-4" is at the upper 2 percentile), you have special needs in a boat that many designers may not try to accommodate in general.
As I think Charlie mentioned, having the ability to stand up in a boat's main cabin, is an important cruising feature for many people. CJ has also written about how this need may "depend" on the owners' heights, and that one reason that he has been content with the Meridian 25 is that he has sufficient headroom. Maybe since you are so tall, it is unlikely that most 25/26/27-foot boats are going to accommodate you well.
I was looking at an ad for an Alberg 30 for sale for $5k that described the main cabin headroom as being 6'-5" (Perhaps John could confirm this).
There are other features that a boat like the A30 has that many cruisers come to prefer over time including the heavier displacement/motion comfort, full keel (will track and heave-to well, important features), attached/protected rudder (very strong design), and just the overall extremely rugged construction of an A30 (or similar boat).
The other potential problem is that custom modifications that you do make for your use may not add much resale value for the average (5'-9.5" tall) buyer, and could easily detract if not done well. That may well be a perfectly good layout and bulkhead for average-height owners.
Maybe an interim plan would be to modify the current boat's main cabin settee berth to make it extend into a double berth for now (along the lines of what Rorik already suggested). Plan to use the boat like that for a couple seasons, and to evaluate whether it is a boat you will be happy with for the long term--or whether because of the forward cabin/V-berth shortcomings, and other issues, it is not going to work out, and be worth investing modifications into.
If you got the Annapolis 26 for a great price, the good news is that you should be in a good position to resell that boat for what you have invested (possibly even more), and reinvest in a long-term one. One thing worse than deciding to find a different boat, is to put a lot of effort and expense into the current one only to discover that you can't make it into what you need, and then have to find another boat anyway (and try to recover the fruitless investments in the old one).
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 24, 2014, 07:57:42 PM
I was looking at an ad for an Alberg 30 for sale for $5k that described the main cabin headroom as being 6'-5" (Perhaps John could confirm this).
Hmmm, not if it's stock.
There are two main version of the Alberg 30, and a bunch of boats that are "transition" boats. And, add to that, they were all essentially "custom built" in some fashion, so there is a LOT of variation.
That said, we'll go with the two main classes, typically called "pre-liner" and "liner." The transition was not a hard break, but was around 1970. Some transition boats around that period had features of both.
The pre-liner boats had about 6' or 6'-1" of headroom. The liner boats have about 1-2" (or so) less due to the liner. I'm 5-10 and walk comfortably, even with a hat on, inside our liner boat.
All that said, if the boat was a pre-liner boat and an owner (or even the factory at the request of an owner it was being built for) lowered the sole, I suppose it's possible that one could get a few extra inches out of headroom.
I'd have to ask those that know the pre-liner boats better than I do if it would be possible to get five full inches, however. From what I gather, that would be quite a stretch.
In any case, I think it's going to be a rare "Small Boat" indeed that offers over 6' headroom.
I do know one South African dude that has been a full time cruiser (and multiple ocean crosser) since the early 1990's, and he's taller than me; I'd put him at at least 6' and maybe a touch over. His boat was a Camper Nicholson 31 that he bought bare hull and finished himself way back when. I don't know if he could stand up inside, but knowing him, I doubt he'd cut that particular corner of comfort and safety (in terms of preventing fatigue), so, I'd say it's certainly
possible.
Here's the ad...(not far from you, John)
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/boa/4379771660.html
Maybe the seller could be measuring to the underside of closed sliding companionway hatch? That is where you would be standing while at the galley, which is handy.
I believe that my Contest 30 had 6'-2" or so headroom in the main cabin. I think that the Allied Seawind 31 also does.
My friend's Cape Dory 30 also seemed to have a good deal of headroom.
How about your Cape dory 28, Rorik? These are a bit later Alberg cabin trunks, without the stepped form.
I expect that the V-berths in these boats may also be longer, with larger forward cabins.
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 24, 2014, 09:05:23 PM
Here's the ad...(not far from you, John)
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/boa/4379771660.html
Maybe the seller could be measuring to the underside of closed sliding companionway hatch? That is where you would be standing while at the galley, which is handy.
That's a good point; there's a good extra few inches there. But, with 'headroom,' I think of it in terms of moving around the cabin, getting out of the bunk and standing (while still sleepy, etc), so ...
And, just for completeness, that's a pre-liner boat, so it would have the extra couple of inches of head room compared to my boat.
Another way to tell it's the 'old style' is in one photo, you can see the vertical door to the ice box, which was built to be accessible from both cabin and cockpit. The newer "liner" boats have a top access ice box at the aft end of the port settee.
There are a bunch of other details, some that matter a lot for blue water, between the two models.
Back on the head room topic...I'm not sure someone 6'-2" would be comfy standing / moving around in an A-30 cabin. That step-down is right at (actually aft slightly) the main bulkhead, so the head (for example) is the lower cabin height. I don't know...I think if it were me, I'd want to "live" on one for at least a weekend to see how it worked out before making a commitment.
And, I know the main cabin settees are right at about 72" near as I can remember. I think I've measured mine. In any case, I know that sleeping, I did not feel like I had huge excesses of room. I guess some cabin mods could be done to fix that, however.
To compare to the 30's you mention with more headroom, keep in mind the A-30 has very low freeboard and not much hull depth for a 30 footer. She's sleek like a shark. ;D
It almost breaks my heart to say this...haha ... but an Alberg 30 may not be a good match for someone a few inches over 6 feet.
Quote from: Captain Smollett on March 24, 2014, 09:20:36 PM
It almost breaks my heart to say this...haha ... but an Alberg 30 may not be a good match for someone a few inches over 6 feet.
Tis sad...there seem to be some A30 deals out there :'(
Maybe one of the others then...
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 25, 2014, 12:04:32 AM
Quote from: Captain Smollett on March 24, 2014, 09:20:36 PM
It almost breaks my heart to say this...haha ... but an Alberg 30 may not be a good match for someone a few inches over 6 feet.
Tis sad...there seem to be some A30 deals out there :'(
Maybe one of the others then...
Fwiw,
I find the "pre liner" Alberg 30s (like Johns) to be nicer then the later boats. I is a not unlikely that the sole might have been lowered to gain a couple of inches.... It woud drop rather quickly with a relatively modest reduction in size because of the turn of the bilge at the level of the sole.....
There are a couple of Ariel's that I know of that have also had their sole lowered to gain a bit more headroom (although they have a fairly extrodinary amout of headroom for their size)...
Being 5'10" I find the Ariel just about perfect for me.
As big a concession as it is to make, i already resigned myself to the fact that if I wanted to get out there now I was going to have to give up on the idea of standing headroom. The only sailboats i have been able to confidently and comfortably stand completely straight in without compromise were 34 feet and larger - exponentially more complicated and financially way beyond reach. Sad, but it is what it is. I can do nothing about my height or my budget, so the compromise had to come somewhere.
Now, if i magically woke up one morning without budgetary concerns, that would be a different story altogether. Man, do i have some ideas.... :)
Quote from: s/v Faith on March 25, 2014, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 25, 2014, 12:04:32 AM
Quote from: Captain Smollett on March 24, 2014, 09:20:36 PM
It almost breaks my heart to say this...haha ... but an Alberg 30 may not be a good match for someone a few inches over 6 feet.
Tis sad...there seem to be some A30 deals out there :'(
Maybe one of the others then...
Fwiw,
I find the "pre liner" Alberg 30s (like Johns) to be nicer then the later boats. I is a not unlikely that the sole might have been lowered to gain a couple of inches.... It woud drop rather quickly with a relatively modest reduction in size because of the turn of the bilge at the level of the sole.....
There are a couple of Ariel's that I know of that have also had their sole lowered to gain a bit more headroom (although they have a fairly extrodinary amout of headroom for their size)...
Being 5'10" I find the Ariel just about perfect for me.
Lowering the sole in Tehani gave me about an inch and a half more headroom.
Quote from: s/v Faith on March 25, 2014, 10:54:30 AM
I find the "pre liner" Alberg 30s (like Johns) to be nicer then the later boats.
For the record, my boat is a "liner" boat, built in 1972.
It's funny, though. I once got into an argument with a lady who swore up and down that my boat had the "wrong" kind of something on it for a liner boat. I tried to explain to her that in some respects, all A-30's are unique, and there's some 'cross over' between the styles.
I may be wrong here...it happens often...but didn't Whitby switch from cast to lead ballast at one point and lower the sole for more headroom as well??
Quote from: Frank on March 25, 2014, 12:32:07 PM
I may be wrong here...it happens often...but didn't Whitby switch from cast to lead ballast at one point and lower the sole for more headroom as well??
Alberg drew the boat based on lead ballast, but Whitby built with cast iron to save money. So far as I know, that switch was from the beginning of production.
There is at least one boat with lead ballast, though, #78. After building that boat custom for the customer, Kurt Hanson (of Whitby) said he would not do another...info per the A-30 site.
It's my understanding that the entire production run, with the exception of custom ordered #78, was ballasted with cast iron.
Quote from: CharlieJ on March 25, 2014, 11:11:18 AM
Lowering the sole in Tehani gave me about an inch and a half more headroom.
Charlie, I did think about what you had done with
Tehani to lower the cabin sole, and nearly mentioned that it seemed like an option. My concern would be that while you have plenty of experience about all the other aspects of your boat to know without a doubt that it will meet your needs, and the work that you do will not be a bad investment. (Also, since you have the advantage of being a boatbuilder by trade, it is an investment that comes at a lower cost than for Darren.) That is unlikely to be the case for someone that is new to cruising, boats, and working on them.
Quote from: DarrenC on March 25, 2014, 11:05:04 AM
As big a concession as it is to make, i already resigned myself to the fact that if I wanted to get out there now I was going to have to give up on the idea of standing headroom. The only sailboats i have been able to confidently and comfortably stand completely straight in without compromise were 34 feet and larger - exponentially more complicated and financially way beyond reach. Sad, but it is what it is. I can do nothing about my height or my budget, so the compromise had to come somewhere.
Now, if i magically woke up one morning without budgetary concerns, that would be a different story altogether. Man, do i have some ideas.... :)
Darren, my intent was not in any way to discourage you from getting out there now on the boat that you have. It was only to suggest that you might want to hold off on modifying the forward cabin/bulkhead etc. and use that as it is for now (perhaps for a couple seasons, as I wrote), and maybe instead do a simple modification the main cabin berth so that it can function as a double berth, if you need one that is more convenient than the current V-berth.
Again, those who are new to boating often get one kind of boat initially and, as they get more experience and learn what their unique priorities are (and what kind of cruising you will actually be doing), find that they want to trade for a different type of boat. I certainly have done this, and know enough others who have to know that it is very a common process.
The concern is that if you don't anticipate this, you could invest a lot in your current boat to try to adapt it to your needs, and easily later discover that it is not suited to your actual future needs for unrelated reasons in more general ways (I gave a couple examples previously, such as a full-keel vs short fin keel design).
It may be that a 26-foot/5,000-lb 6-foot headroom boat is something that is going to be a difficult proposition to make work long-term in general for anyone who is 6'-4" tall.
I am not sure that your choice necessarily has to only be to jump in size and budget from your current boat to a 34-foot one. I believe you will have more options in between. You may not be able to find another boat that gives you complete standing headroom, but that does solve your V-berth issue (and has other features that you may want, but will only discover with experience).
My advice would be to by all means, get out there and use and enjoy the boat you have, but to keep in mind that it is likely to be a boat that you will outgrow (possibly fairly soon), and to make any investments in modifying the boat accordingly, with resale value a major consideration. Invest some time while you are using your current boat to continue to explore other affordable boat options for the future. A boat that may be worth modifying to suit you (including things like possibly lowering the cabin sole) because the other features it has are ones that you will be happy with long-term. The example of the Alberg 30, although it may not be that boat for you, may be encouraging in that there are very well regarded 30-foot/9,000-pound boats out there for sale for an asking price of $4000 (albeit, needing some work).
What is more important than any one particular boat is that your enjoyment of sailing and cruising grows and endures.
Quote from: Jim_ME on March 25, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
Quote from: CharlieJ on March 25, 2014, 11:11:18 AM
Lowering the sole in Tehani gave me about an inch and a half more headroom.
Charlie, I did think about what you had done with Tehani to lower the cabin sole, and nearly mentioned that it seemed like an option. My concern would be that while you have plenty of experience about all the other aspects of your boat to know without a doubt that it will meet your needs, and the work that you do will not be a bad investment. (Also, since you have the advantage of being a boatbuilder by trade, it is an investment that comes at a lower cost than for Darren.) That is unlikely to be the case for someone that is new to cruising, boats, and working on them.
Oh, yes. I know that. I was just adding to the previous comments about lowering the sole on a boat.
In fact, on Tehani it was REALLY done so I could access the keel bolts- they were under a glassed in fiberglassed sole, and could not even be seen, much less checked, with that in there. While I had it out, I discovered the original installation had huge globs of resin covering the bolts. I removed that so I could check the bolts, added some new bolts, added some new floors, at a much lower level, and so the original sole wouldn't work anymore. Gaining the head room was incidental in this case.
By the way- originally there were nine keel bolts.. I added 12 new ones, so the keel is now held with 21 bolts :D
Quote from: CharlieJ on March 25, 2014, 04:24:00 PM
Oh, yes. I know that. I was just adding to the previous comments about lowering the sole on a boat.
Of course. :) I meant to acknowledge the idea of lowering the sole to you Charlie, but meant to direct the question (or doubt about) its applicability to any (possibly short-term) boat to Darren, but failed to start a new paragraph and to address it to him, and ran together what should have been separate.
While you are using your current boat, you have the advantage of being able to take your time to be creative on the budget aspect and find a good deal.
For instance there was (what looked like) a decent Alberg 30 for sale a year or two ago near Annapolis for $1500. Maybe 10 years ago there was another A30 local to me, that had come off its mooring in a storm and was damaged (rudder, scraped keel, rub rails, stanchions). I went to look at the boat and appreciated what a beautiful boat it was--even banged up. It was on eBay and though I wasn't sure that I needed to move up to a boat that size, I bid about $800. Someone else won it for about $850.
One example of a feature that might be improvement for some, even if not the total leap to full standing headroom throughout the main cabin, is something like having a built-in galley located aft where you can stand under the maximum available height at the companionway sliding hatch (either closed or open). When the galley is located at the forward end of the cabin, it's not under the hatch, and often the cabin trunk begins to step down there reducing headroom further.
In addition to any headroom benefits, having the galley aft allows the cook to hand food directly out the companionway for dining in the cockpit. Others can hand dishes back in, or place them in the sink from the cockpit, or reach in and grab some more food. Any heat from cooking can rise and escape through the open hatch, rather than heating up the whole cabin.
Jim - methinks you spend entirely too much time uneccessarily explaining yourself. Youre a decent guy with great ideas and i don't think anyone in this group would suspect you of intentionally malicious content. You're among friends here - relax a little ;D
I totally agree with you on the galley to the aft. During Carita's mystery refit someone made a significant investment in a long teak galley along the starboard side. Its comfortable enough to sit on the port bench and cook, although standing in the companionway would be much more sensible, and having opposing settees that i could drop an infill between for a big rectangular bed would be fantastic.
Quote from: DarrenC on March 25, 2014, 05:37:12 PM
Jim - methinks you spend entirely too much time uneccessarily explaining yourself. Y
Thanks, but it was sloppy writing on my part. Had to let Charlie know that I know he already knew that. :)
Quote from: DarrenC on March 25, 2014, 05:37:12 PM
...i don't think anyone in this group would suspect you of intentionally malicious content. You're among friends here
Oh I
do know that! :D
Okay, I was thinking about suggesting that if nothing else works out, maybe one last-ditch option, since you have that free healthcare up there in Canada, would be to try to get height-reduction treatment. You might be able to make the case that being so much taller than normal is really cramping your cruising lifestyle (and it is not much of an advantage for hockey). You might even offer to be an excess height donor for those who have, through no fault of their own, been stricken and disadvantaged by being born short (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tazoid8UX5U) ;)
:D :D :D
Ya doesn't have to worry about Charlie- I'm way thicker skinned than that!!
:D :D :D
And you have made some quite good suggestion- some things to thing about
Thank you, Charlie. :)
Quote from: DarrenC on March 25, 2014, 05:37:12 PM
I totally agree with you on the galley to the aft. During Carita's mystery refit someone made a significant investment in a long teak galley along the starboard side. Its comfortable enough to sit on the port bench and cook, although standing in the companionway would be much more sensible, and having opposing settees that i could drop an infill between for a big rectangular bed would be fantastic.
I was still looking at the layout drawing (below) with the settee berth, "folding stove" and sink to starboard, and the dinette/quarter berth to port.
I had a nice extending berth on my Contest 30 where the settee pulled/slid out to make a generous berth and the back cushion moved down and filled in the extended area between the settee cushion. It even had a built-in teak leeboard that was hinged that could be unfolded (from under the cushion) inboard and held by diagonal lines at each end.
I think that you could build a similar berth extension that would convert it into a double berth. Maybe had some legs that folded down to support the extension?
Yes, I think that having some standing headroom even if only under the sliding hatch, to stand at the galley, at the chart table/nav area, to put on and take off foulies, would still be a good thing, even if you don't have it throughout the main cabin.
I'm also wondering whether at some headroom height, say 6'-2" (even the Watkins 27 reportedly has that), you would have standing headroom while heeled under sail, since your height would be relatively diagonal within the cabin?
Darren, I'll post this here since it is specifically for you and relates to the headroom issue...
I had been thinking about this sailboat design (by bill Tripp who also designed the Hinkley Bermuda 40) since I had seen ads in the past for them and remembered that the boat had extraordinarily high headroom. You had mentioned in an earlier post needing to go up in size to a 34-foot boat to find ample headroom , so maybe you were thinking of this same one.
Anyway, I just saw this post for a Columbia MKII 34 - FREE - located in Charles Town, WV.
http://smd.craigslist.org/boa/4374256522.html
Found this webpage on the boat...
http://www.columbia-yachts.com/c-34m2.html
which says...
Headroom - Salon: 7' ; Forward Cabin: 6'4"
CL ad says that "Needs work but appears intact. No mast", but hey, it's free and might be one way to get a boat that would best accommodate you long-term...
Maybe use your current boat during the interim, while finding a mast, etc., ...?
Edit: Also found this ad with photos for a sister-boat for sale...
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/boa/4391593867.html
I'm referring back to the first post re: getting up at night. Maybe with some practice, the use of a small container could eliminate some trips and reduce disturbance to one's berth-mate.
I'm interested in the bulkhead-sawing ideas also; in my boat there's barely room to get a 5-gallon bucket between the mast compression-post and starboard-side bulkhead.