Cheap, Capable Cruisers I

JOHN DALZIEL: Well, Michael, there are a lot of cruisers out there; where do cruising proas fit in? It seems we have three overlapping categories of cruisers:

• Camp-cruisers or beach cruisers as they are sometimes called, with minimal accommodations and equipment, sailed by one or two, and mostly used on island-hopping or similar short-distance jumps which are often part of longer cruises. There's been a lot of discussion of these on Proa File International, and a few have been built, including my Charles L. Brock and John Harris' Mbuli. Gary Dierking's Te Wa would be at the outer edge of this category, size-wise.
• "Cheap capable cruisers," meaning light-weight, simple boats designed for vacation cruises of 2 days to voyages of several months' duration, larger than camp-cruisers and carrying more in the way of supplies and equipment. I'd put your proa Rozinante and Russell Brown's first proa, Jzero, in this category.
• "Live-aboard cruisers" intended for full-time occupation and longer passages. These can also be cheap and capable, but will have more room for stores and are usually better appointed with the idea that the boat is also a home. There's a few proas amongst these, also, for example About Face and De Jours Millieurs.

But over many years seeing people sail to paradise I've noticed that the majority who get there at a younger age have made the trip in small, cheap, used or sometimes homebuilt boats, seldom ideal for the purpose. Yet they are out there doing it, not just dreaming, and obviously having a grand time. So "cheap, capable cruiser" is a category that interests me quite a bit.

Where it comes to multihulls, the vast majority I've actually seen cruised have been either James Wharram catamarans or old English-style (narrow, heavy, slow) cats, in ply or plastic. The third most common would be old plywood trimarans (which interests me because on a percentage basis these are uncommon boats). Big new cats, production tris, and high-speed multis - that is, high-cost boats - are no-shows.

MICHAEL SCHACHT: I must say I like Wharrams quite a lot. I saw a nicely built example of a 26' Tiki at Port Townsend this summer. Really cool details, all designed to eliminate the need for costly SS yacht fittings and other expensive parts, and to be very sturdy.

JOHN: So- why are Wharrams out cruising in such big numbers? I think it comes down to the financial risk you take when you go cruising. If you spend US $200,000 on a boat, right away you have to deal with the fact that that money would have made $10,000- 30,000 annually if invested. A Wharram cat simply doesn't call for that sort of investment, and so can be cruised by people with motivation but who don't have the sort of money to "buy into" the yachting scene.

So if you paid 1/4th of that to build, or buy and refurbish a smaller, cheaper boat you would still have $150,000 invested and it would pay you $7,500-20,000 annually- for many people that is plenty to cruise on. And you still have $150,000 capital when you get home.

You also (and this becomes more important the closer you get to cutting loose) have to acknowledge that should you lose the boat, you also lose the money invested in it. That is a lot easier to take when the boat itself does not represent the majority of your assets. So cruising on an expensive boat is a lot more risky (financially) than it first seems; add the loss of investment income, add the generally higher cost of running a larger boat, add etc.; and pretty soon you realize that cruising and living aboard a $200,000 boat for a couple years can represent $350,000- 400,000 that must be considered potentially disposable, i.e.., that won't represent financial disaster when its gone. There are not a lot of folk with assets enough to take that sort of risk- and that means that expensive boats don't often cruise

MICHAEL: I like your point about expendable income, cost of going vs. cost of staying, etc. Would more people cruise if the boat cost the same as a car, rather than the same as a house? Obviously, not the ones who need a house to cruise comfortably in. And if they need a fast house, well then, Newick's law really comes into play.

J: If cruisers were drastically cheaper, I don't think many more Americans would cruise, but more Europeans would. Psychologically, what percentage of Americans can look at their assets and say "I've done OK; screw work, I'm gonna retire, sell the house and cruise on my investments (or find work along the way for those of us who don't have investments ;-) ) until I get tired of it?" But I do think you would see more Americans out there for whom the cruise would be the important thing; lowering the price of admission means that you don't need the financial backing from investments; you can pay as you go along.

This is the point I hang up on- why spend a bundle on a yacht, then pay through the nose to cruise it, instead of going for a cheap boat and living off the income from your investment of what you didn't spend? How is a heightened anxiety level from the fear of bankruptcy going to improve your enjoyment of the cruise? It seems to me that freedom and the enjoyment would only be enhanced when you eliminate these worries, regardless of whether or not you had imitation Cherrywood Nomex-cored bulkheads.

M: The whole "yachting" thing is to blame, I think. Most people have expectations of what a "seaworthy" vessel is, which is propagated by the yachting press. The magazines, manufacturers, dealerships, and vendors all have a vested interest in these expensive yachts, and to the perception that people "need" the expensive goodies. I look at the anchor tackle on some of these huge yachts I see in marinas, and realize that it alone is over my budget, let alone the yacht! America is a land where luxuries have become necessities, and we take that attitude with us cruising. It infects my thinking too, and what I wind up with is waiting to go when I can afford the boat that meets my standards, which means I don't ever actually cast off. Wharram has a gift for reminding us of that, and presents compelling alternatives.

One reason I think that Wharrams are built and actually cruised is that there is nothing scary or unusual in the process. No vacuum bagging, foam core, etc. that a newbie would be unfamiliar with.

J: Virtually all "hi-tech" or modern boatbuilding methods, and particularly glass/foam, rely on the availability of a controlled indoor environment; by itself this not only adds to cost but also implies that a much higher level of affluence is necessary even before the project starts. That is unnecessary for the Wharram catamaran- you can build a Wharram anywhere. And it is really hard to screw one up to the point where it is impossible to correct your mistakes.

Another way Wharram, both in the old and new designs, reduces cost and building time is to 1: employ a very simple, straightforward hull shape that can be assembled quickly, and then 2: efficiently use the shell and frames as nearly all the interior. When you look closely, Wharram's designs are chock full of this sort of efficiency. There are vastly fewer pieces that go inside a Wharram than just about any other boat I've seen. A lot of his ability to design this way is due to the nature of the hulls; with a more compound, wider, modern shape with wing pods, etc., you would not be able to emulate this- many and more complex cuts would be needed; building time would rise.

M: Of course, I can't help but think "proa" in the back of my mind when I read this, as in: could a proa "out-Wharram" James Wharram? It would be an interesting design exercise.

J: Gary's 31' Te Wa cost him $2000 total, and took 12 weeks to build. Granted it is a daysailer / camper but can't you see the thing with a little wider main hull for a couple bad-weather berths, a portapotty, a dutch kitchen that can be moved out onto the deck in good weather, a huge deck tent or a knock-down solid-roof deck house for a double berth (maybe one of the better quality air mattresses) and a chart board? Five grand, Six grand tops with a professionally made sail.

M: I wonder how comfortable such a stripped down cruiser really would be? I'm all for a Zen approach to cruising, but how mimimal can you go?

J: Well, it partly depends on the nature of the cruise. If you are spending a week in the San Juan Islands, you wouldn't really mind the camping aspect very much. But if you are taking the summer to work your way up the Northwest Passage to Alaska, it would be a different story and as a minimum you'd want more weather protection.

But more broadly, how should we define "comfort?" Those who reject Wharrams or low-cost boats in general are reacting to a discernment of "discomfort," most frequently psychological, rather than to any physical fact about the boats in question. It seems to me that this whole issue is dependent on "comfort" which everyone says is an individual matter- but I don't believe that for a second. There are both physiological and psychological components for which there is a range of variation, but ultimately as we are all human that range must be fairly narrow and must have certain common features.

M: It's the psychological aspect that far outweighs the physical, in this case. It is this perceived need for comfort, or "luxury", that defines the idea of a yacht . What will make the yachtsman the most comfortable? That is the big question. They need chilled white wine or beer to be comfortable, which means they need a fridge, which means they need a generator, and diesel stainless steel fuel tanks, inverters, etc. etc. They need a private head (think how much time, money and aggravation that is spent on the 2-4 heads that most large cruising cats have? Wharram wouldn't waste time with that. If you want a toilet for every person on board, then you aren't thinking clearly about what cruising is all about!

Another thing is that local yachts, "coastal cruisers", etc., that don't go anywhere challenging, are very much designed to impress the owner's peers. Cocktail parties and short cruises are what they do, and the yacht serves the same purpose as a Lexus: a status symbol. Almost the opposite of a cruiser, which is a tool for traveling. How many world cruisers finally opt for bare aluminum topsides? Keeping a gleaming gel coat finish up to yacht club snuff would be a nightmare in foreign ports, where perhaps you are tied up to the Albanian freighter for a night because that is the only spot available in the harbor.

J: So: how does one make a proa "comfortable?" It is a long narrow boat with little elbow room below, but great deck space; if someone comes on board, how do you get them to immediately think, "gee, this is a great big little boat," instead of "for a boat this large it is awfully constricted." "This is a nice cosy cabin" instead of "gawd let me outta this coffin?" How do you design a boat that you know will be tight below in such a way as to say "we live on deck and it's great?" How do you control the impact of the tightness below to say "I feel safe and secure down here; its a great place to sleep and read, and safe in bad weather?" There's a challenge...

M: The English manage this very well in their cozy little cruisers. They tend to have a much more realistic idea of what is actually needed for small boat cruising. We Americans seem to have totally lost that. As far as my wish list goes, I would love a boat with equivalent accommodations and tech level as a Wharram, but that would readily sail with the fast company on ocean passages. Long surfing runs at 20 knots, frequently exceeding wind speed, what a joy that would be... One area that a proa may really excel at is in good daily runs. A cat must be treated with great respect to get performance near it's real potential. Hand holding of sheets, flying a hull, etc. Not very relaxing, but really fun for short bursts. To be safe, you really need to throttle back, and slow down. Trimarans are a bit better, but not a lot.

Dave Culp and I have played with developing his Really Big Proa, and one of the things that have come out of it is a very unusual stability curve for proas with lee pods. The boat has a typical catamaran stability curve at first, with the stability decreasing faster than the sail pressure as it heels, so you must crack the sheet to avoid capsize. However, as the boat continues to heel, the pod enters the water, and the stability shoots back up again to it's previous level. Now the sail pressure is reducing faster than the righting moment, so the boat has positive righting moment right up to and even past 90 degrees. What this means is that the proa can be sailed much closer to - and even past - it's limits, with little fear of catastrophe. So even though the proa has a lower top speed, it can still sail faster over the long haul. The lee pod proa is like a monohull in this regard. That idea appeals to me, and is something that could make proas an intereresting option for people who want performance, but not the constant threat of capsize.

J: Just to illustrate the type, here's a sketch of a small cruising proa:

31 Small Cruising Proa

• 30' 11" approx. LOA. 28' 4" LWL
• Disp. shown 1900#. L/B 14/1
• Draft as shown 20" approx.
• Rig about 260 sq.ft.

Log (ama) about 25' long, 1'6" diameter, with PC of 0.66 it's disp. = 1800#;  if you want 100% buoyancy, the diameter can come up a bit, and if you don't, then it can be made a good bit smaller. If we have 20% static displacement in the log, it will carry 380# at rest: if 30% then 570#. Water ballast and/or anchor & chain or other heavy storage is a possibility.

Minimum hull lines, minimum complication. Interior headroom from the seat, 3'6", from the floorboards 4'9". A cockpit well (lashed-on) is possible, might be a nice addition. The beams extend to the lee to support a counterpoise.

M: Looks interesting! I know, you want load carrying ability, not so much speed, with this design, hence the L/B of "only" 14/1. Still higher than a Wharram, so it should be faster. Bruce No: 1.3? Kinda low, I think. One thing we are going to need to figure out is aux. light air sails. Proas are very tough for this. Perhaps kites will be the answer!

J: This is about the Bruce No. of Wharram's classic series. I was thinking more along the KISS principle of not pushing the envelope here. You can avoid a lot of trouble on proas by not exaggerating the size of the rig.

M: Yes. Low resistance allows low sail area. I like the profile, with the small deckhouse in front of the beams. I picture that as being a nice deck hatch detail, with sitting headroom below in the berth. The sheer is jaunty, which I like. From the bow, the beams slope down to the log, which makes me worry that the space between will be fairly unusable as a cockpit, etc. Perhaps the beams should be horizontal, and then curve quickly down to the log, or attach the log with sticks and lashing, in Oceanic fashion.

J: I see no problem with that and it would be easier to build, so is well in line with the program. There is a second possibility here: swing beam. Hinge a forked wooden beam just a few inches away from the hull side, with the upper and lower hinges about 2' apart. Stresses would be quite low, clearance still good.

M: And a good cockpit tent/sailing dodger would be cool. I wonder if a small lee pod could be added over the counterpoise, to add more interior? Just as an option, of course. Or perhaps not, simple is the priority! A real backpacking aesthetic is what is called for here. Lightweight fabric in place of plywood wherever possible! I'm thinking maybe arched fiberglass bows, with the tent sewn in, like a modern geodesic dome, so that it could be squashed by a wave, but then pop back into place afterwards.

J: I think a lee pod would be a good addition, but complexity is at issue. Easier to build, also serving as a lee pod for self-righting, and still useful would be a separate deck box lashed on to the beams, or a separate box glued to the outside of the finished hull and accessible to the interior via porthole-sized cutouts through the hull skin. Either way cuts out a lot of framing and constructional complication. Don't forget Dick Newick's suggestion of an inflatable Hypalon lee pod - minimum weight.

M: I think this boat is a bit small to really be a Wharram alternative. I think that ocean voyaging, or at least the ability to make a passage, is what fuels the Wharram concept. The Tiki 26 is as small as you can go in that vein, and it has a 22' 6" WL, weighs 1550 lbs. empty, and has a max loading capacity of 1700 lbs. (according to Wharram's term) so that gives a max. displacement of 3250 lbs. The sail area is 285 sq. ft. I wonder how high Wharram lets his WL get to achieve that load carrying ability? Anyway, food for thought on sizes.

J: Actually, this sketch most closely matches up in weight and payload with Wharram's Hinemoa design, at 23' LOA. A Tiki 23, if such existed, would be about the same. So to match up with a Tiki 26 you are going to have to bump the proa up to 35 feet or so LOA. Salient questions: what are the relative enclosed volumes of the boats, relative materials lists, relative # of building steps?

M: OK, I see where you are going with this.

J: Waterline length for Hinemoa is 19', for the Tiki 26 is 22.5', for the proa it is 28.25'. The Hinemoa and proa have similar dry weights and displacements. The Tiki 26 has higher numbers for both. For carrying capacity: an excellent discussion on MhML a while back produced a consensus that 1000 lb. per person was about a minimum-sized long-term cruising load, so if you are going to carry 2 people you need 1 ton capacity.

The 23' Hinemoa "sleeps 2," so does the 31' proa. Either boat has enough capacity to cruise singlehanded. The Tiki 26, at 1700# capacity, allows 850# per person for a crew of two, i.e., a short-term cruiser for 2 or a "real" cruiser for 1. A "Tiki 28" (Tanenui update) would be a better minimum long-term cruiser for 2, with 1 ton cap. A proa to match the Tanenui or a "Tiki 28" would have to be about 38' LOA.

M: With proas, carrying capacity for length will always be the problem. There's a challenge for us: develop a hull shape that can handle more weight in a shorter length, without hitting that displacement wave drag problem. One obvious solution I guess is to build the windward hull side out of two (or more) panels, like Gary Dierking, so the hull can be considerably fuller. This of course adds complication, which is the last thing we want, but if it allows us to keep the hull considerably shorter, with fewer scarphs and less material, then maybe we come out ahead.

Wharram appeals to those with a very clear idea of what they consider important. It allows them to get "out there doing it" the fastest and cheapest way. No clutter about peer values, is it "yachty" enough for the club, or fast enough for the course. It may be that his double canoes are the best solution, but I would think that building one proa hull and an ama would beat two cat hulls. Besides, cats are now so mainstream. Ya gotta build a proa to be counter culture these days.

Comments