Engineless cruising

[bladedancer]

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.

[Captain Smollett]

Actually, the Panama Canal requires a minimum full ahead boat speed of EIGHT knots as seen in this document. 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.

[Godot]

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

[CharlieJ]

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.

[Captain Smollett]

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

[Auspicious]

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.

[rorik]

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.

[Godot]

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.

[CharlieJ]

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.

[maxiSwede]

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.

[CharlieJ]

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.

[maxiSwede]

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.  :)

[LooseMoose]

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/

[maxiSwede]

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!

[Captain Smollett]

I typed another (too wordy) reply and scrapped it.

Instead, I offer this counter example...sailboat in name only.  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?

[saxon]

I've been reading this thread with more than passing interest..Let me introduce you to my shipmate MacTed,                                                     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.

[Chattcatdaddy]

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

[Mario G]

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.

[Captain Smollett]

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.

"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.