Vee-Berth Blues....

[DarrenC]

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!

[Jim_ME]

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.

[rorik]

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

[Jim_ME]

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.

[CharlieJ]

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 ;)

[Jim_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.

[CharlieJ]

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

[Jim_ME]

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.

[Jim_ME]

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.

[Grime]

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.

[Bob J (ex-misfits)]

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 

[Wade]

I had the same issue. Here's the result. Remember the mechanics car never runs, Apull down window shade provides privacy when needed.

[Wade]

pic didn't make the previous post.

[CharlieJ]

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

[Jim_ME]

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?

[Jim_ME]

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.

[DarrenC]

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.

[s/v Faith]

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!

[Seadogdave]

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!

[Jim_ME]

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?