Re: [bolger] Re: Chebacco Sea Keeping
Here's what I think about small boating out of Oregon ports. I'm a
freshwater sailer, haven't been out over the bar in years (with one brief
exception). I can't think of a good reason to go out except for fish, or
the thrill. I got out of the fishing habit (though I keep saying I should
start up again) and am getting to be of an age when thrills don't interest
me so much (then why did I go out with Scott in that little banks dory at
the Depoe Bay fest a few years ago? <g>). So the following comes from
sitting on the shore watching the boats come and go.
The North Pacific can be scary, but it's the bits around the edges that are
worst. There are few harbors on the Oregon Coast that don't have
treacherous bars (Port Orford and Depoe Bay, which doesn't really have a
"bar" but has other challenges <g>) to varying degrees. Even when the bar
looks good on the way out, it can turn bad before you try to come back in.
I recall a big storm that blew in unexpectedly about 35 years ago during
salmon season, trapping a bunch of sport and commercial fishermen outside
for several days. The commercial boats were prepared to ride out a storm,
but the sport fishermen mostly weren't, and many were in small, open boats.
The Coast Guard was kept busy dropping fuel and sandwiches to the fishermen
until it was safe to come back in. IIRC, few boats were lost, it would have
been much worse if the boats had tried to get in over the bars. That may
have been the storm (1965, IIRC) when three sport fishing boats foundered
on the Siuslaw bar while trying to come in. The CG 36 footer went out onto
the bar in 30' seas to fish people out of the water! They managed to get
some, but several people drowned. A week or two later I went out in the
Siuslaw 36 footer (A Sea Scout outing) when the seas were 15' and breaking
on the bar, that was exciting enough for me. When I thought of the
Coastguardsmen out there in waves twice as high, not just crossing the bar,
but staying out on it rescuing people, I got a lot of respect for them!
A lot of people go out across the bars in small boats though, you've just
got to watch the weather and tides. Sometimes the ocean can be almost like
a lake, I went out salmon fishing from Depoe Bay one day when getting in
and out of the harbor was just like driving your car in and out of a
parking lot! But that was an exceptional day (still got seasick though...).
Pacific City "dories" (they're more like big, flat-bottomed skiffs
nowadays) fish well offshore in ordinary conditions, and just about
anything that'll float a fisherman will go out over the good bars when the
weather is nice, though often small boaters don't venture far beyond the
bar, so they can hurry back in if the weather starts to turn or the fog
starts rolling in.
The Coast Guard sometimes closes a bar to boats under 16' or 24' in length
(kind of arbitrary, eh? a manifestation of the CG's less admirable
bureaucratic and police side) and will chase down folks in small boats
trying to do something foolish before they get into trouble. There's
usually a CG boat hanging around the bar when there are lots of fishermen
out.
Going by reports from Jamie and Bill, and the ride Jamie gave me at PT last
year, I don't think a Chebacco would be a good boat for the Oregon Coast.
It may be able enough to keep you from drowning, but it wouldn't be
comfortable. Chebacco is light and fairly heavily canvased, great for the
East Coast in summer and the inland waters of BC and Washington. But when
the wind gets up to common Oregon Coast velocity, force 5 and up Jamie and
Bill are well reefed down. I fell in love with the Chebacco the first time
I saw Wayward Lass, but for regularly going out into the open Pacific and
handling the river bars I think something huskier would be more suitable.
Micro, or Long Micro with a shorter rig maybe...
freshwater sailer, haven't been out over the bar in years (with one brief
exception). I can't think of a good reason to go out except for fish, or
the thrill. I got out of the fishing habit (though I keep saying I should
start up again) and am getting to be of an age when thrills don't interest
me so much (then why did I go out with Scott in that little banks dory at
the Depoe Bay fest a few years ago? <g>). So the following comes from
sitting on the shore watching the boats come and go.
The North Pacific can be scary, but it's the bits around the edges that are
worst. There are few harbors on the Oregon Coast that don't have
treacherous bars (Port Orford and Depoe Bay, which doesn't really have a
"bar" but has other challenges <g>) to varying degrees. Even when the bar
looks good on the way out, it can turn bad before you try to come back in.
I recall a big storm that blew in unexpectedly about 35 years ago during
salmon season, trapping a bunch of sport and commercial fishermen outside
for several days. The commercial boats were prepared to ride out a storm,
but the sport fishermen mostly weren't, and many were in small, open boats.
The Coast Guard was kept busy dropping fuel and sandwiches to the fishermen
until it was safe to come back in. IIRC, few boats were lost, it would have
been much worse if the boats had tried to get in over the bars. That may
have been the storm (1965, IIRC) when three sport fishing boats foundered
on the Siuslaw bar while trying to come in. The CG 36 footer went out onto
the bar in 30' seas to fish people out of the water! They managed to get
some, but several people drowned. A week or two later I went out in the
Siuslaw 36 footer (A Sea Scout outing) when the seas were 15' and breaking
on the bar, that was exciting enough for me. When I thought of the
Coastguardsmen out there in waves twice as high, not just crossing the bar,
but staying out on it rescuing people, I got a lot of respect for them!
A lot of people go out across the bars in small boats though, you've just
got to watch the weather and tides. Sometimes the ocean can be almost like
a lake, I went out salmon fishing from Depoe Bay one day when getting in
and out of the harbor was just like driving your car in and out of a
parking lot! But that was an exceptional day (still got seasick though...).
Pacific City "dories" (they're more like big, flat-bottomed skiffs
nowadays) fish well offshore in ordinary conditions, and just about
anything that'll float a fisherman will go out over the good bars when the
weather is nice, though often small boaters don't venture far beyond the
bar, so they can hurry back in if the weather starts to turn or the fog
starts rolling in.
The Coast Guard sometimes closes a bar to boats under 16' or 24' in length
(kind of arbitrary, eh? a manifestation of the CG's less admirable
bureaucratic and police side) and will chase down folks in small boats
trying to do something foolish before they get into trouble. There's
usually a CG boat hanging around the bar when there are lots of fishermen
out.
Going by reports from Jamie and Bill, and the ride Jamie gave me at PT last
year, I don't think a Chebacco would be a good boat for the Oregon Coast.
It may be able enough to keep you from drowning, but it wouldn't be
comfortable. Chebacco is light and fairly heavily canvased, great for the
East Coast in summer and the inland waters of BC and Washington. But when
the wind gets up to common Oregon Coast velocity, force 5 and up Jamie and
Bill are well reefed down. I fell in love with the Chebacco the first time
I saw Wayward Lass, but for regularly going out into the open Pacific and
handling the river bars I think something huskier would be more suitable.
Micro, or Long Micro with a shorter rig maybe...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:42:38 -0000, J Bell wrote:
> My question is "where in the Oregon coast does he intend to sail?"
> That would make a big difference on what boat he chooses, IMO. Is he
> talking about the Columbia River delta or sailing out of a hole-in-
> the-wall like Depoe Bay? Is he thinking about crossing any of the
> bars with great regularity?
>
> >From what I've seen of the Oregon coast, it is a wild, rough place
> with lots of exposure and treacherous lee-shores. The boats in the
> harbors in places like Newport seem to reflect the need to survive in
> those conditions because hidey-holes are few and far between.
>
> If it were me, I'd be looking at something like Seabird 86 for home
> waters like Newport or Coos Bay and Chebacco only if I'm going to
> stay in the Columbia away from the bar.
>
> I would like hear Jamie Orr's or John Kohnen's take on the question.
> Too bad Chuck Merrell dropped off the list...
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for;
as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. <H. L. Mencken>
That's a good page! The whole book the info is from, "Boating in Oregon
Coastal Waters" is also available online, in PDF format:
http://www.boatoregon.com/PDFs2/Coastal%20Waters-BOOK.pdf
Who would have imagined that our tax and license dollars were being spent
something so useful. <g>
Coastal Waters" is also available online, in PDF format:
http://www.boatoregon.com/PDFs2/Coastal%20Waters-BOOK.pdf
Who would have imagined that our tax and license dollars were being spent
something so useful. <g>
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:19:53 -0800, Larry Barker wrote:
> ...
> Oregon State Marine Board publishes a nice summary of the coastal harbors -
> it's online athttp://www.boatoregon.com/CoastalWaters/BayIndex.htm.
> ...
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
Missionaries, my Dear! Don't you realize that missionaries are the divinely
provided food for destitute cannibals? Whenever they are on the brink of
starvation, Heaven in its infinite mercy send them a nice plump missionary.
<Oscar Wilde>
Greetings,
I'd like to take issue with Chuck Merell's opinion just a bit. I grew up
boating in Oregon and don't think the picture is quite as bleak as he paints
it. A lot of small boats go out and most of them aren't crazy at all. Of
course, there are some ...
It IS a rough coast with few refuges. The wind is generally onshore and a
LOT of boats and ships have been lost along it. But there is a big
difference between summer and winter, between sailing out of a good harbor
and trying to cross some of the rougher bars and between day sailing in the
place, time and weather of your choice and cruising down the coast (or, God
forbid, trying to make a living commercial fishing). In the winter I
wouldn't want to be out. Even in calm, sunny weather the winter swells are
impressive. In the summer it's often (very) foggy in the morning, especially
when it's hot inland. It often burns off by afternoon and a NW wind sets in,
sometimes strongly, again especially when the hot weather inland creates a
"thermal low".
But, for day sailing, there are many beautiful summer days with fairly
predictable weather and, if you don't get too far downwind, it is not a big
deal to come back in. IF you are crossing a nice bar. Newport and the Chetco
at Brookings are generally friendly in the summer, even to small boats. Port
Orford is tucked in behind a headland - protected from the summer winds -
and doesn't have a bar at all (I've never been out there myself tho). Coos
Bay has a good bar but it's pretty exposed for a small boat if the wind
kicks up. I still don't know about Depoe Bay, it sure is a narrow channel.
The Columbia is scary just because there's so much water moving and it takes
so long to get across the bar. Some of the others are just plain bad. The
Oregon State Marine Board publishes a nice summary of the coastal harbors -
it's online athttp://www.boatoregon.com/CoastalWaters/BayIndex.htm.
If you're talking about cruising down the coast, unless you have a coastal
port on your itinerary, I think Chuck is right. Stay way offshore and get on
down the coast. And I wouldn't consider anything but a real sea boat for
running up and down the coast, offshore or in. A Chebacco just wouldn't do.
Of course, this is just another across-the-web opinion. It's up to the
skipper and if it doesn't look good to you, go with your gut.
Larry Barker, in cold and clear Talent, Oregon, dreaming of the summer ...
I'd like to take issue with Chuck Merell's opinion just a bit. I grew up
boating in Oregon and don't think the picture is quite as bleak as he paints
it. A lot of small boats go out and most of them aren't crazy at all. Of
course, there are some ...
It IS a rough coast with few refuges. The wind is generally onshore and a
LOT of boats and ships have been lost along it. But there is a big
difference between summer and winter, between sailing out of a good harbor
and trying to cross some of the rougher bars and between day sailing in the
place, time and weather of your choice and cruising down the coast (or, God
forbid, trying to make a living commercial fishing). In the winter I
wouldn't want to be out. Even in calm, sunny weather the winter swells are
impressive. In the summer it's often (very) foggy in the morning, especially
when it's hot inland. It often burns off by afternoon and a NW wind sets in,
sometimes strongly, again especially when the hot weather inland creates a
"thermal low".
But, for day sailing, there are many beautiful summer days with fairly
predictable weather and, if you don't get too far downwind, it is not a big
deal to come back in. IF you are crossing a nice bar. Newport and the Chetco
at Brookings are generally friendly in the summer, even to small boats. Port
Orford is tucked in behind a headland - protected from the summer winds -
and doesn't have a bar at all (I've never been out there myself tho). Coos
Bay has a good bar but it's pretty exposed for a small boat if the wind
kicks up. I still don't know about Depoe Bay, it sure is a narrow channel.
The Columbia is scary just because there's so much water moving and it takes
so long to get across the bar. Some of the others are just plain bad. The
Oregon State Marine Board publishes a nice summary of the coastal harbors -
it's online athttp://www.boatoregon.com/CoastalWaters/BayIndex.htm.
If you're talking about cruising down the coast, unless you have a coastal
port on your itinerary, I think Chuck is right. Stay way offshore and get on
down the coast. And I wouldn't consider anything but a real sea boat for
running up and down the coast, offshore or in. A Chebacco just wouldn't do.
Of course, this is just another across-the-web opinion. It's up to the
skipper and if it doesn't look good to you, go with your gut.
Larry Barker, in cold and clear Talent, Oregon, dreaming of the summer ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Samson" <Bill.Samson@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Chebacco Sea Keeping
> Hi,
>
> Richard asked about my 1/8 scale model of a Chebacco. I did sail this in
the local boating pond and on one occasion she capsized (scale wind strength
probably 3 or 4 'perfect storms'). She turned turtle and the mast stuck in
the bottom.
>
> I had to wade in to get her . . .
>
> John Bell was lamenting the lack of Chuck Merell's opinion on the matter.
I forwarded his message to Chuck and here's what he says . . .
>
> "Regarding the Oregon Coast and a Chebacco, I'd probably stay at home in
> front of the big screen TV, were it me. The Oregon Coast, almost any part
> of it, is quite simply some of the roughest, most inhospitable, nastiest
> water anywhere on the planet. With the daily onshore wind which creates
> miserable and big swells, most who have any experience at all give it a
wide
> berth even in prime weather. By that I mean, the preferred distance is 75
> to 150 miles offshore with no closure with land until you get at least to
> Eureka, and better yet, San Francisco. Most unless they're going to SF
> specifically or need to call there, don't come in from off soundings until
> about Santa Barbara. No Shit!
>
> "Were it me, I'd go out at least 125 miles, set the wind vane and spend as
> much time prone in bed as possible until the swell dropped to about 1-2
feet
> from 10-12 feet, the sun came out and the dolphins showed up, chasing the
> Anchovies."
>
> OK?
>
> Bill
Hi,
Richard asked about my 1/8 scale model of a Chebacco. I did sail this in the local boating pond and on one occasion she capsized (scale wind strength probably 3 or 4 'perfect storms'). She turned turtle and the mast stuck in the bottom.
I had to wade in to get her . . .
John Bell was lamenting the lack of Chuck Merell's opinion on the matter. I forwarded his message to Chuck and here's what he says . . .
"Regarding the Oregon Coast and a Chebacco, I'd probably stay at home in
front of the big screen TV, were it me. The Oregon Coast, almost any part
of it, is quite simply some of the roughest, most inhospitable, nastiest
water anywhere on the planet. With the daily onshore wind which creates
miserable and big swells, most who have any experience at all give it a wide
berth even in prime weather. By that I mean, the preferred distance is 75
to 150 miles offshore with no closure with land until you get at least to
Eureka, and better yet, San Francisco. Most unless they're going to SF
specifically or need to call there, don't come in from off soundings until
about Santa Barbara. No Shit!
"Were it me, I'd go out at least 125 miles, set the wind vane and spend as
much time prone in bed as possible until the swell dropped to about 1-2 feet
from 10-12 feet, the sun came out and the dolphins showed up, chasing the
Anchovies."
OK?
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Richard asked about my 1/8 scale model of a Chebacco. I did sail this in the local boating pond and on one occasion she capsized (scale wind strength probably 3 or 4 'perfect storms'). She turned turtle and the mast stuck in the bottom.
I had to wade in to get her . . .
John Bell was lamenting the lack of Chuck Merell's opinion on the matter. I forwarded his message to Chuck and here's what he says . . .
"Regarding the Oregon Coast and a Chebacco, I'd probably stay at home in
front of the big screen TV, were it me. The Oregon Coast, almost any part
of it, is quite simply some of the roughest, most inhospitable, nastiest
water anywhere on the planet. With the daily onshore wind which creates
miserable and big swells, most who have any experience at all give it a wide
berth even in prime weather. By that I mean, the preferred distance is 75
to 150 miles offshore with no closure with land until you get at least to
Eureka, and better yet, San Francisco. Most unless they're going to SF
specifically or need to call there, don't come in from off soundings until
about Santa Barbara. No Shit!
"Were it me, I'd go out at least 125 miles, set the wind vane and spend as
much time prone in bed as possible until the swell dropped to about 1-2 feet
from 10-12 feet, the sun came out and the dolphins showed up, chasing the
Anchovies."
OK?
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Folks, happy new year everybody.
This has been an interestig thread (oh memories) and would like to
share my two cents on those elucubrations.
I've done a quite extensive analysis on the Chebacco (CN #26), whose
numbers qualified it as a vessel for protected waters (as Bolger
says). It turned out that adding ballast would not increase the boat
seaworthiness significantly (as Bolger says). The same analysis
qualified Micro as a marginally "off shore" vessell. Most probably,
Long Micro would be well into the off shore category if analyzed the
same way.
About comfort, it does not take a NA to understand that Micro and
Long Micro would have a much more seakind motion with respect to the
Chebacco in a chop. The Chebacco though is certainly much better as a
trailerable daysailer.
The Serpentaire (designed by Veys and engineered for wood/epoxy by
Jacques Mertens) would most probably do much better than all those
boats: it's simply a more seaworthy boat. It's more boat also.
Regarding keels now. It's not exact that a shallow keel makes "per
se" for a worse leeway with respect to a deep one. If the center of
gravity remains at the same place, the boat would heel the same, so
the difference would be made by the lateral area. It's true though
that deep keels help to lower the COG, helping the boat to stay
upright, with less distorted wet lines. On the other hand, a very
deep COG makes for a shaky, nervous boat (see Buehler for this).
Pippo Bianco, in the snowy and chilly southern Italy, now betraying
Bolger and building a CK17 designed by Jacques Mertens...
This has been an interestig thread (oh memories) and would like to
share my two cents on those elucubrations.
I've done a quite extensive analysis on the Chebacco (CN #26), whose
numbers qualified it as a vessel for protected waters (as Bolger
says). It turned out that adding ballast would not increase the boat
seaworthiness significantly (as Bolger says). The same analysis
qualified Micro as a marginally "off shore" vessell. Most probably,
Long Micro would be well into the off shore category if analyzed the
same way.
About comfort, it does not take a NA to understand that Micro and
Long Micro would have a much more seakind motion with respect to the
Chebacco in a chop. The Chebacco though is certainly much better as a
trailerable daysailer.
The Serpentaire (designed by Veys and engineered for wood/epoxy by
Jacques Mertens) would most probably do much better than all those
boats: it's simply a more seaworthy boat. It's more boat also.
Regarding keels now. It's not exact that a shallow keel makes "per
se" for a worse leeway with respect to a deep one. If the center of
gravity remains at the same place, the boat would heel the same, so
the difference would be made by the lateral area. It's true though
that deep keels help to lower the COG, helping the boat to stay
upright, with less distorted wet lines. On the other hand, a very
deep COG makes for a shaky, nervous boat (see Buehler for this).
Pippo Bianco, in the snowy and chilly southern Italy, now betraying
Bolger and building a CK17 designed by Jacques Mertens...
Peter,
That is a pretty good analysis of what occurs with the High
Aspect fin vs. the full keel.
A major disadvantage of the shoal keel is its lack of windward
ability. It is simply too shallow to hang on and resist the lateral
movement of the boat. But, all boats are a compromise of sorts.
If I wanted to go to windward quickly, I would purchase a J22.
It has the same accomodations as Micro. However, it is a beast to
put on a trailer, and will not tend to her own needs when left
alone.
My previous boat was a Herreshoff Goldeneye (a Bullseye that had
been stretched 3 feet). It had a small cuddy, full keel, and classic
lines. It also had very good upwind ability! this was due to its 3
foot draft, and heavy hull with a tall rig. The cuddy was useless
for overnighting as there was no real good place for a large (ok,
fat) man to lie down in, and the porta potti was always in the way.
It had a ridiculously high PHRF number which made her the envy of all
the other yachtsmen on the south coast of Cape Cod. She did not tack
quickly, or keep her helmsmen or crew comfortable (dry).
My point is: (I suppose I ought to have one) is that with Micro,
her trailering ability is superb, she will look after herself, and
the accomodations are spacious in comparison. I am giving up
windward ability for serious overnight accomodations and the ability
to trailer and gunkhole anywhere. At my age, I have enough trophies
on the shelf. I want quality sailing with my kids, wife, (dog?). The
kids are going to love anchoring, swimming, fishing, and just bashing
around on the water. This summer is going to be something to enjoy.
If I can't get to windward, I can always turn on the motor (once
its impeller is replaced!)
See you on the water. Now its off to the basement to put the
sailtrack on the spars. "Winter be damned."
David Jost
"slowly losing it in Massashusetts"
That is a pretty good analysis of what occurs with the High
Aspect fin vs. the full keel.
A major disadvantage of the shoal keel is its lack of windward
ability. It is simply too shallow to hang on and resist the lateral
movement of the boat. But, all boats are a compromise of sorts.
If I wanted to go to windward quickly, I would purchase a J22.
It has the same accomodations as Micro. However, it is a beast to
put on a trailer, and will not tend to her own needs when left
alone.
My previous boat was a Herreshoff Goldeneye (a Bullseye that had
been stretched 3 feet). It had a small cuddy, full keel, and classic
lines. It also had very good upwind ability! this was due to its 3
foot draft, and heavy hull with a tall rig. The cuddy was useless
for overnighting as there was no real good place for a large (ok,
fat) man to lie down in, and the porta potti was always in the way.
It had a ridiculously high PHRF number which made her the envy of all
the other yachtsmen on the south coast of Cape Cod. She did not tack
quickly, or keep her helmsmen or crew comfortable (dry).
My point is: (I suppose I ought to have one) is that with Micro,
her trailering ability is superb, she will look after herself, and
the accomodations are spacious in comparison. I am giving up
windward ability for serious overnight accomodations and the ability
to trailer and gunkhole anywhere. At my age, I have enough trophies
on the shelf. I want quality sailing with my kids, wife, (dog?). The
kids are going to love anchoring, swimming, fishing, and just bashing
around on the water. This summer is going to be something to enjoy.
If I can't get to windward, I can always turn on the motor (once
its impeller is replaced!)
See you on the water. Now its off to the basement to put the
sailtrack on the spars. "Winter be damned."
David Jost
"slowly losing it in Massashusetts"
Having owned a flat bottomed sailboat (a Nimble 20) I'd like to disagree.
Then thing really handled chop fine as long as you were sailing.
If you motored straight upwind of course it pounded like crazy.
But tacking upwind was fairly smooth.
"willsamson" <willsamson@...> on 01/09/2002 01:33:04 PM
Please respond tobolger@yahoogroups.com
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [bolger] Re: Chebacco Sea Keeping
Peter wrote:
Every boat's a compromise, and Chebacco's wonderful for trailer
sailing and exploring shallow places, but able enough to handle rough
water and wind from time to time. IMO she'd be VERY tiring to sail a
long distance in a big sea - you'd get exhausted very quickly with
the motion of such a light hull.
So if you want a light, shallow boat for trailer sailing, good in a
chop, but not planning too much blue-water stuff, I'd go for Chebacco.
Vagabond ( www.bateau.com )is more conventional, about the same size
as Chebacco, and probably a lot better in blue water. I've been
tempted by that design myself.
Personally, though, I'd want something a LOT bigger if I was
venturing out to sea on a regular basis. I would certainly NOT want
to try and make headway in a seaway with a flat bottomed hull, unless
I was hoping to shake my wisdom teeth out and was content with one
step forward, SLAM! and two back (- been there, done that . . . AND
at one time believed all that baloney about her heeling and the chine
forming a Vee-bottom. Rubbish! Stationary boats don't heel - they
just stamp, stop and get tossed about. Getting to windward is a
forlorn hope.)
Bill
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Then thing really handled chop fine as long as you were sailing.
If you motored straight upwind of course it pounded like crazy.
But tacking upwind was fairly smooth.
"willsamson" <willsamson@...> on 01/09/2002 01:33:04 PM
Please respond tobolger@yahoogroups.com
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [bolger] Re: Chebacco Sea Keeping
Peter wrote:
> p.s. for more conventional boats, see Vagabond and Serpentaire atIt depends on how you're planning to use the boat MOST of the time.
> www.bateau.com
Every boat's a compromise, and Chebacco's wonderful for trailer
sailing and exploring shallow places, but able enough to handle rough
water and wind from time to time. IMO she'd be VERY tiring to sail a
long distance in a big sea - you'd get exhausted very quickly with
the motion of such a light hull.
So if you want a light, shallow boat for trailer sailing, good in a
chop, but not planning too much blue-water stuff, I'd go for Chebacco.
Vagabond ( www.bateau.com )is more conventional, about the same size
as Chebacco, and probably a lot better in blue water. I've been
tempted by that design myself.
Personally, though, I'd want something a LOT bigger if I was
venturing out to sea on a regular basis. I would certainly NOT want
to try and make headway in a seaway with a flat bottomed hull, unless
I was hoping to shake my wisdom teeth out and was content with one
step forward, SLAM! and two back (- been there, done that . . . AND
at one time believed all that baloney about her heeling and the chine
forming a Vee-bottom. Rubbish! Stationary boats don't heel - they
just stamp, stop and get tossed about. Getting to windward is a
forlorn hope.)
Bill
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> Wouldn't the keel be more robust - more likely to survive reallyrough conditions?
I was thinking about effectiveness in sailing to windward, not
strength. Neither should break unless you hit something hard.
The point has been made by PCB and others that the shoal draft boat
is sailing in water being driven to leeward by the wind. A deeper
keel can get more bite in the "stationary" water below. I suspect
there is some truth to this, but I'm not sure if it is really a major
factor. For all the documentation I've seen on wind speed gradients,
I have not seen much on water speed gradients.
Boats are designed with the notion of a dynamic equilibrium, and in
particular, stable lines of flow around the keel and rudder (and mast
and sails). If the boat is tossed around, thrown to the side,
stopped, or whatever, the lines of flow are altered and it takes a
second or two for things to settle down again. In rough water, they
never really settle down.
Now it is my belief, BASED ON NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS WHATEVER, that the
lines of flow take longer to get established, and the dynamic
equilibrium is more fragile, with the long shoal keel than with a
short, deep (high aspect) keel, at least when the boat is moving
fairly rapidly.
The situation is reversed when the boat is nearly stopped. Since the
high AR keel generates more lateral force per area in hydrofoil mode
(i.e. with forward motion), it will need less area than the low AR
keel. With the boat stopped, the high AR keel with less area will
blow to leeward faster than the low AR keel with high area. But as
soon as forward motion is established, the high AR keel will be
better. IMHO.
I would welcome other opinions. Maybe my involvement in racing with
its heavy emphasis on upwind sailing has caused a prejudice against
shoal keels.
Peter
I actually have the plans to the Serpentaire. I know from an ease of
construction and sailing ability that it is a great choice. But I
have an aesthetic taste for more nestalgic designs. I like the
squarish cabins and flat sheer decks in designs such as Devlin's
Arctic Tern and Winter Wren. These designs will require a lot more
time to build. I also like the catboat style hulls but prefer to
stay away from the true cat rig. That what cought my eye on the
Chebacco. Seems like everything is a comprimise. The Kari 3 from
S/F looks good too but it seems that keel beefing would need to be
engineered. I do want to stick with the S&G buillding method. This
much I know for sure.
Thanks for all your help!
construction and sailing ability that it is a great choice. But I
have an aesthetic taste for more nestalgic designs. I like the
squarish cabins and flat sheer decks in designs such as Devlin's
Arctic Tern and Winter Wren. These designs will require a lot more
time to build. I also like the catboat style hulls but prefer to
stay away from the true cat rig. That what cought my eye on the
Chebacco. Seems like everything is a comprimise. The Kari 3 from
S/F looks good too but it seems that keel beefing would need to be
engineered. I do want to stick with the S&G buillding method. This
much I know for sure.
Thanks for all your help!
--- In bolger@y..., "willsamson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
> > p.s. for more conventional boats, see Vagabond and Serpentaire at
> > www.bateau.com
>
> It depends on how you're planning to use the boat MOST of the
time.
> Every boat's a compromise, and Chebacco's wonderful for trailer
> sailing and exploring shallow places, but able enough to handle
rough
> water and wind from time to time. IMO she'd be VERY tiring to sail
a
> long distance in a big sea - you'd get exhausted very quickly with
> the motion of such a light hull.
>
> So if you want a light, shallow boat for trailer sailing, good in a
> chop, but not planning too much blue-water stuff, I'd go for
Chebacco.
>
> Vagabond ( www.bateau.com )is more conventional, about the same
size
> as Chebacco, and probably a lot better in blue water. I've been
> tempted by that design myself.
>
> Personally, though, I'd want something a LOT bigger if I was
> venturing out to sea on a regular basis. I would certainly NOT
want
> to try and make headway in a seaway with a flat bottomed hull,
unless
> I was hoping to shake my wisdom teeth out and was content with one
> step forward, SLAM! and two back (- been there, done that . . . AND
> at one time believed all that baloney about her heeling and the
chine
> forming a Vee-bottom. Rubbish! Stationary boats don't heel - they
> just stamp, stop and get tossed about. Getting to windward is a
> forlorn hope.)
>
> Bill
Peter wrote:
Every boat's a compromise, and Chebacco's wonderful for trailer
sailing and exploring shallow places, but able enough to handle rough
water and wind from time to time. IMO she'd be VERY tiring to sail a
long distance in a big sea - you'd get exhausted very quickly with
the motion of such a light hull.
So if you want a light, shallow boat for trailer sailing, good in a
chop, but not planning too much blue-water stuff, I'd go for Chebacco.
Vagabond ( www.bateau.com )is more conventional, about the same size
as Chebacco, and probably a lot better in blue water. I've been
tempted by that design myself.
Personally, though, I'd want something a LOT bigger if I was
venturing out to sea on a regular basis. I would certainly NOT want
to try and make headway in a seaway with a flat bottomed hull, unless
I was hoping to shake my wisdom teeth out and was content with one
step forward, SLAM! and two back (- been there, done that . . . AND
at one time believed all that baloney about her heeling and the chine
forming a Vee-bottom. Rubbish! Stationary boats don't heel - they
just stamp, stop and get tossed about. Getting to windward is a
forlorn hope.)
Bill
> p.s. for more conventional boats, see Vagabond and Serpentaire atIt depends on how you're planning to use the boat MOST of the time.
> www.bateau.com
Every boat's a compromise, and Chebacco's wonderful for trailer
sailing and exploring shallow places, but able enough to handle rough
water and wind from time to time. IMO she'd be VERY tiring to sail a
long distance in a big sea - you'd get exhausted very quickly with
the motion of such a light hull.
So if you want a light, shallow boat for trailer sailing, good in a
chop, but not planning too much blue-water stuff, I'd go for Chebacco.
Vagabond ( www.bateau.com )is more conventional, about the same size
as Chebacco, and probably a lot better in blue water. I've been
tempted by that design myself.
Personally, though, I'd want something a LOT bigger if I was
venturing out to sea on a regular basis. I would certainly NOT want
to try and make headway in a seaway with a flat bottomed hull, unless
I was hoping to shake my wisdom teeth out and was content with one
step forward, SLAM! and two back (- been there, done that . . . AND
at one time believed all that baloney about her heeling and the chine
forming a Vee-bottom. Rubbish! Stationary boats don't heel - they
just stamp, stop and get tossed about. Getting to windward is a
forlorn hope.)
Bill
Peter:
Wouldn't the keel be more robust - more likely to survive really rough conditions?
Chuck
<snip>
The shoal keel would not be as good in rough water as Chebacco's
centerboard.
<snip>
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wouldn't the keel be more robust - more likely to survive really rough conditions?
Chuck
<snip>
The shoal keel would not be as good in rough water as Chebacco's
centerboard.
<snip>
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My question is "where in the Oregon coast does he intend to sail?"
That would make a big difference on what boat he chooses, IMO. Is he
talking about the Columbia River delta or sailing out of a hole-in-
the-wall like Depoe Bay? Is he thinking about crossing any of the
bars with great regularity?
From what I've seen of the Oregon coast, it is a wild, rough place
with lots of exposure and treacherous lee-shores. The boats in the
harbors in places like Newport seem to reflect the need to survive in
those conditions because hidey-holes are few and far between.
If it were me, I'd be looking at something like Seabird 86 for home
waters like Newport or Coos Bay and Chebacco only if I'm going to
stay in the Columbia away from the bar.
I would like hear Jamie Orr's or John Kohnen's take on the question.
Too bad Chuck Merrell dropped off the list...
JB
That would make a big difference on what boat he chooses, IMO. Is he
talking about the Columbia River delta or sailing out of a hole-in-
the-wall like Depoe Bay? Is he thinking about crossing any of the
bars with great regularity?
From what I've seen of the Oregon coast, it is a wild, rough place
with lots of exposure and treacherous lee-shores. The boats in the
harbors in places like Newport seem to reflect the need to survive in
those conditions because hidey-holes are few and far between.
If it were me, I'd be looking at something like Seabird 86 for home
waters like Newport or Coos Bay and Chebacco only if I'm going to
stay in the Columbia away from the bar.
I would like hear Jamie Orr's or John Kohnen's take on the question.
Too bad Chuck Merrell dropped off the list...
JB
--- In bolger@y..., "willsamson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., "rlspell2000" <richard@s...> wrote:
> > Could you describe in detail "conditions that made us wish we'd
> > stayed ashore!"? Wind, waves, swells, etc?
>
Please believe me, I would NEVER try to talk anyone out of a
Chebacco. And since I have never sailed one, I can't comment on the
question at hand.
However, for completeness, someone should mention some alternatives.
Long Micro is about the same size and layout, with a little more
stress on the cabin. Possibly you might want to follow the lead of
other builders and modify the cockpit to be self-draining. The
ballast keel should help keep it upright. On the down side, it is
much less pretty and would have a less smooth action in rough water.
The shoal keel would not be as good in rough water as Chebacco's
centerboard.
The Single Handed Schooner is about the same size. The forward 2/3 of
the boat can be enclosed watertight. The dagger keel is ballasted.
The boat was designed to be able to sail offshore in the pacific
Pacific of Southern California. Downsides: difficult to arrange
outboard power, no cabin, and the splashy action of a flat bottom
boat.
The Triple Keel Sloop is a 22', strip-built, gaff sloop designed for
Cape Cod Bay where the water is usually flat but can be very rough.
It has a nice cabin and a secure cockpit. Downsides: a much bigger
building project. (Strip building is something to learn, but fitting
strips is probably not more difficult than fitting wide panels.) I
would ask for a single keel version because I distrust the bilge
keels.
Storm Petrel is a minimum motor sailer. Basically a robust flat
bottom skiff with a small cabin, flat steel plate keel and lateen
rig. My guess is that this boat could be improved with a keel of the
general Micro/Seabird type and a more aggressive rig. Also a flat
bottom boat.
Peter
p.s. for more conventional boats, see Vagabond and Serpentaire at
www.bateau.com
Chebacco. And since I have never sailed one, I can't comment on the
question at hand.
However, for completeness, someone should mention some alternatives.
Long Micro is about the same size and layout, with a little more
stress on the cabin. Possibly you might want to follow the lead of
other builders and modify the cockpit to be self-draining. The
ballast keel should help keep it upright. On the down side, it is
much less pretty and would have a less smooth action in rough water.
The shoal keel would not be as good in rough water as Chebacco's
centerboard.
The Single Handed Schooner is about the same size. The forward 2/3 of
the boat can be enclosed watertight. The dagger keel is ballasted.
The boat was designed to be able to sail offshore in the pacific
Pacific of Southern California. Downsides: difficult to arrange
outboard power, no cabin, and the splashy action of a flat bottom
boat.
The Triple Keel Sloop is a 22', strip-built, gaff sloop designed for
Cape Cod Bay where the water is usually flat but can be very rough.
It has a nice cabin and a secure cockpit. Downsides: a much bigger
building project. (Strip building is something to learn, but fitting
strips is probably not more difficult than fitting wide panels.) I
would ask for a single keel version because I distrust the bilge
keels.
Storm Petrel is a minimum motor sailer. Basically a robust flat
bottom skiff with a small cabin, flat steel plate keel and lateen
rig. My guess is that this boat could be improved with a keel of the
general Micro/Seabird type and a more aggressive rig. Also a flat
bottom boat.
Peter
p.s. for more conventional boats, see Vagabond and Serpentaire at
www.bateau.com
--- In bolger@y..., "rlspell2000" <richard@s...> wrote:
leaving when there's maybe a force 4, with one reef in, then twenty
minutes later being in a force 6 and having trouble handling her with
TWO reefs in, feeling more and more seasick as the waves kick up.
The trick of course is to drop the sails - not too difficult even
single handed in a Chebacco, and get the OB going to motor back to
the mooring/slip.
I've never felt in any danger in these conditions, and I'm sure the
Chebacco could handle much worse with just the mizzen up to hold her
head to wind - but sailing in a narrow estuary, as I do, you really
need to avoid being driven ashore so it's important to maintain
control at all times.
I guess that out at sea, in anything short of a 'Perfect Storm' the
Chebacco should look after itself, hove to. OK - the non-
selfdraining cockpit would take in some water, but the worst case
scenario is about a foot deep in the footwell before it starts
draining out over the cutaway in the transom. Some people have
fitted self-draining footwells, but they end up with their knees
under their chin!
It would take a freak combination of wind and wave action to make her
capsize - I doubt if wind alone could do it. Still, she could heel a
LOT!
Having said all this, I only ever venture out to sea on a favourable
weather forecast.
Cheers,
Bill
> Could you describe in detail "conditions that made us wish we'dA couple of times I've ventured out single handed in rising winds,
> stayed ashore!"? Wind, waves, swells, etc?
leaving when there's maybe a force 4, with one reef in, then twenty
minutes later being in a force 6 and having trouble handling her with
TWO reefs in, feeling more and more seasick as the waves kick up.
The trick of course is to drop the sails - not too difficult even
single handed in a Chebacco, and get the OB going to motor back to
the mooring/slip.
I've never felt in any danger in these conditions, and I'm sure the
Chebacco could handle much worse with just the mizzen up to hold her
head to wind - but sailing in a narrow estuary, as I do, you really
need to avoid being driven ashore so it's important to maintain
control at all times.
I guess that out at sea, in anything short of a 'Perfect Storm' the
Chebacco should look after itself, hove to. OK - the non-
selfdraining cockpit would take in some water, but the worst case
scenario is about a foot deep in the footwell before it starts
draining out over the cutaway in the transom. Some people have
fitted self-draining footwells, but they end up with their knees
under their chin!
It would take a freak combination of wind and wave action to make her
capsize - I doubt if wind alone could do it. Still, she could heel a
LOT!
Having said all this, I only ever venture out to sea on a favourable
weather forecast.
Cheers,
Bill
--- In bolger@y..., "Bill Samson" <Bill.Samson@t...> wrote:
trouble with a Chebacco, despite some of us (me included) getting
caught out in conditions that made us whish we'd stayed ashore! No
capsizes have been reported, either.
Could you describe in detail "conditions that made us whish we'd
stayed ashore!"? Wind, waves, swells, etc?
Thanks
> As a matter of interest, during my seven years of editing ChebaccoNews I didn't hear of a single episode of anyone getting into real
trouble with a Chebacco, despite some of us (me included) getting
caught out in conditions that made us whish we'd stayed ashore! No
capsizes have been reported, either.
>Hey, Bill, how's things?
Could you describe in detail "conditions that made us whish we'd
stayed ashore!"? Wind, waves, swells, etc?
Thanks
Who better to comment on Chebacco's Sea Keeping qualities than the Master himself.
"They are very good in rough water and forgiving in squalls and with prudent and skilled handling and not exceptionally bad luck would get over the North Sea, or the ocean for that matter; but by present day standards they are inshore and fair-weather boats."
[PCB - in a letter to me a few years back.]
As a matter of interest, during my seven years of editing Chebacco News I didn't hear of a single episode of anyone getting into real trouble with a Chebacco, despite some of us (me included) getting caught out in conditions that made us whish we'd stayed ashore! No capsizes have been reported, either.
No doubt Jamie Orr, Fraser Howell and Tim Smith will have views, too, based on real experience.
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"They are very good in rough water and forgiving in squalls and with prudent and skilled handling and not exceptionally bad luck would get over the North Sea, or the ocean for that matter; but by present day standards they are inshore and fair-weather boats."
[PCB - in a letter to me a few years back.]
As a matter of interest, during my seven years of editing Chebacco News I didn't hear of a single episode of anyone getting into real trouble with a Chebacco, despite some of us (me included) getting caught out in conditions that made us whish we'd stayed ashore! No capsizes have been reported, either.
No doubt Jamie Orr, Fraser Howell and Tim Smith will have views, too, based on real experience.
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]