I have been thinking that it’s about time I shared with you what is going on behind the scenes with the Adventure-40 .
The short version is that we have a tiger by the tail. Here are some details:
Real Naval Architects
Four professional naval architects with established and illustrious careers have expressed interest in the project and have been helping me behind the scenes:
- The Jean-François(s)—there are two, Eeaman and Delvoye—at Boréal, designers and builders of go-anywhere aluminum offshore voyaging boats. The Jean-François are also both very experienced voyagers. Jean-François Eeaman has been a steady presence in the comments to the Adventure-40 posts and has shared a huge amount of wisdom, both that way and in direct emails.
-
Ed Joy, who was for many years a designer at Chuck Paine Yacht Designs and is now out on his own. Ed has an impressive portfolio of successful as well as beautiful offshore boats. He has already contributed in the comments and will be helping in others ways to be revealed later.
-
Ian McCurdy, of McCurdy and Rhodes Naval Architects, who worked with his father, Jim, to design some of the most beautiful and successful offshore boats ever launched. (I’m not biased…really, I promise.) Boats that can, 43 years after they were built, let’s see if I can put this delicately…kick ass and take names on the race course. Ian has volunteered to answer my dumb questions about hull forms and make sure I don’t make a complete ass of myself on the subject—hope he knows what he is getting himself into!
Smart Readers that Contribute
You, our readers, have made a huge contribution to the project in the comments to the posts. We value everyone’s input, but I need to single out two people for special mention:
-
Matt Marsh, who I have already written about, has done a huge amount of work behind the scenes including coming up with a sample design complete with engineering and cost analysis. Matt has just posted a really good overview of the Adventure-40 concept.
-
Richard (RDE) Elder, came up with the first Adventure-40 specification, and has since contributed a huge amount using his years of boat building project management experience, both in the comments and directly to me in the form of emails and a long phone call.
The Buzz is Building
Ian, as well as running McCurdy and Rhodes, teaches at SUNY Maritime College at Fort Schuyler, New York. He is going to set the Adventure-40 as a design project for his students.
Ian has also asked me to speak to his class, which is the second invitation I have had to talk about the Adventure-40. We are going to try and fit such engagements in this coming winter, so if you have an organization that you think would be interested and that can make a meaningful contribution to the project, let us know soon.
In addition I got a wonderful enthusiastic email out of the blue from Alex Agnew, publisher over at Ocean Navigator Magazine, offering to do anything in his power to make the Adventure-40 happen. That email led to a great and wide ranging hour long telephone conversation.
It’s About Better Boats
What all of these people share is a concern about the path that modern “offshore boats” have gone down in recent years and a conviction that it can be done better. Sure, some of them are in the business and might eventually benefit financially from the Adventure-40, but that really does not seem to be their primary motivation. And when your primary motivation is to create something insanely great, rather than just making money, you often build a breakthrough machine and make money. (Hard to have the former without the latter.)
We Got Customers
I have saved the best news for last: As of today we have 50 people who have signed up as being interested in buying an Adventure-40. And even better news: At least 27 of those sign ups have indicated in the comments to the sign up form that they are seriously interested in buying an Adventure-40 within three years.
Yes, I know, it isn’t a sale until the cheque clears. But hey, this is a great start and way better than I had hoped to have at this point or than most builders have when they start on a new boat.
Playing The Long Game
We still have lots more to do:
-
I’m working on a Mk II specification for the Adventure-40 incorporating many of your suggestions and a lot of cogitation. Look for it to start rolling out in the form of multiple posts in the late summer or fall when we get back from cruising Newfoundland.
-
We still need to crack several business problems, including sales and marketing; owner support; and the big one, finance. I have ideas to solve all three, which will be the subject of future posts.
-
We need to build as much buzz as we can. Please do whatever you can to promote the Adventure-40: Facebook, blogs, forums, or face to face; it all helps.
I’m thinking that all of this will take most of next winter. Like I said, the long game. Let’s do it right, not fast. Also, I would like to have a life outside of the Adventure-40.
Builder
Finally, many of you will notice that we are missing a key player. A builder needs to find us. The way I phrased that last sentence was no accident. Many people have suggested that I need to approach this or that established boat builder about the Adventure-40. But I won’t be wasting my time like that. Here is why.
One thing I learned in some 30 years in the high tech industry is that legacy companies very rarely, if ever, build new and innovative products or “get” new business models. And I have better things to do with my time than try to convince established boat builders that the way they have done business for the past umpteen years won’t work for the Adventure-40.
The person(s)—I hope it will be one or two entrepreneurs—who eventually build the Adventure-40 will be people that come to us because they just simply get it, without convincing from me. And we have a pretty big bunch of carrots to help that person find us—a very profitable defined business model, a pool of ready-to-buy customers, and the chance to do something great.
If you have any questions, or suggestions, please leave a comment. Note that my answers may be delayed by the lack of internet access on the south coast of Newfoundland.
Further Reading
- Sign up to buy an Adventure-40
C. Dan July 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I hope we’ll be able to see video of your speaking engagement at SUNY Maritime and other similar events.
John July 11, 2012 at 6:43 am
Hi C.Dan,
That’s a good idea. That is unless I screw it up, in which case it will be buried soooo… deep!
Steve July 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm
John,
What a great job you have done in getting an all star team of boat designers together. Sort of like the Canadian National Hockey team except in modern boat design, eh!
It will happen and not too far forward we will see many Adventure 40′s sailing the world oceans. I would be proud to anchor next to such a strong and yet affordable ocean going vessel.
John July 11, 2012 at 6:45 am
Hi Steve,
Thanks so much for the vote of confidence. It’s great to hear from “yea sayers”.
bruno July 11, 2012 at 12:02 am
thks for the update, great to read how much quality and experience gents are and wish to be involved, and as well as the way you communicate on and with this high level team,
the result of this high energy consuming challenge of simplification and optimalisation can’t be bad anyhow,
Wish you again plenty courage in the difficulties of main strategic choices !
and you are definitely right, the same way this A40 team found you, the right builder in search of “another boat” will appear some day and find you ! Trust it !
PS : This said, a simplified B40 could also be a solution …
but ok, i’m again not objective, i’m belgian, seaman and alu-freak …
John July 11, 2012 at 6:47 am
Hi Bruno,
Thanks very much for getting on-board with my thinking on the builder. I sound confident, and I am confident, but there is always a nagging doubt and having someone else confirm an idea is very valuable.
Ann July 11, 2012 at 6:10 am
I am curious as to the demographic makeup of the fifty ‘sign-ups’. What is the offshore experience level i.e. do they meet the profile of the anticipated target market of new voyagers, or, are they already experienced people looking for a better boat?
Ann
John July 11, 2012 at 6:49 am
Hi Ann,
I don’t have solid data on that, but from reading the comments to the sign ups it would seem that most are first time offshore boat owners–the target market.
Ty Giesemann July 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm
John,
Tried to link to Matt Marsh’s overview, but got a Page Not Found error. For info, am in the over-64 demographic, having sold our Morgan 46 that we Trans-Lanted aboard, but looking for a suitable replacement for a couple. We met in Newfoundland in 2003.
Cheers, Ty & Suzanne Giesemann, now boatless
John July 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Hi Ty,
Sure, I remember you guys. Thanks for the heads up on Matt’s post. He has it fixed now.
Roger July 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm
You might consider whether a single “builder” is what is required, or potentially outsourcing to a series of specialist suppliers (or subcontractors), each contributing a portion of the work that they are good at. For instance, molding and structural work, plumbing and electrical, deck hardware, interior fit-out, rig supply, etc.. Yes, there are logistical, management and coordination issues, but it provides for skilled specialists, rather than generalists.
One item that needs to be done really well is the steering and autopilot system. I know that this has been mentioned a number of times before, but having just installed a new system, it really adds to the enjoyment of short-handed sailing.
Keep up the great effort!
RDE July 11, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Watching the many comments that have come forth about the Adventure 40 and recent “Tough old Aluminium Boat” topics it is obvious that there is a strong contingent that favors that material for the Adventure 40. Given that sentiment, I’d like to weigh in on the subject of paint on aluminum boats.
First, some observations and guesstimates regarding the fiberglass/aluminum debate. (see there, i can speak Yank!)
1- At least in my experience there are two kinds of boats that are very hard to sell in the US: Wood, even if it is fully encased in fiberglass and epoxy, and aluminum (even with paint on it). Are the potential buyers of the A40 immune to the preconceptions developed by 50 years of advertising propaganda?
2- I suspect that in France, and possibly the rest of Europe an aluminum boat, even completely bare of paint, will outsell an equally good fiberglass one if it is targeted at people dreaming of adventure sailing.
3- There are many things at the design level that can be done to make building aluminum boats in series more efficient, but they will always require more labor and higher skill levels.
So, is the Adventure 40 to be a European design that some savvy Yanks will understand and buy, or an introductory ocean cruiser for Americans looking to venture beyond the marina?
Some 20 years ago I became acquainted with a young couple, Bernard and Monique Souchard who were what might be termed the second generation of high latitude adventurers. Their boat was a round bilge Garcia 45, with the plate formed on a monster english roller operated by M. Garcia senior. The hull was a work of art, so fair that you could have simply sprayed paint on it and it would have looked great. Bernard attributed that not just to Garcia’s skill but to the fact that the topside plate was 8mm thick.
The take away from this and later experiences watching a 22 man crew spend a million dollars fairing and painting a motoryacht that was designed with every square meter of surface a compound curve is simple.
Assuming a chine design:
1- Design with as little framing and as thick plate as possible within panel deflection parameters.
2- Design plate layout to be self-fairing.
3- Minimize lineal footage of welding.
4- Understand and follow welding sequences.
If you design and build properly, painting the hull topsides does not have to be a $20 0r $30,000 job–actually closer to $7,000. The difference comes by trying to achieve a fiberglass mold tooled finish level. If you want a painted hull, paint the hull! If you want a yacht finish “equal to my Porsche” as one of my owners required, bring your checkbook and be prepared to open it regularly along with the keys to the gold in your Swiss vault.
Paint on aluminum fails first at the edges. Paint the hull directly over a properly prepared surface with no fairing on it and it will cost less and require far less upkeep than if you paint the deck, cockpit, and superstructure and leave the hull bare. Paint a perforated cap rail and attach snatch blocks, dock lines, fender boards etc to it and it could well generate as much maintenance as an entire hull topsides.
Moral of the story, pick how much maintenance you want— but if you want a pink hulled aluminum boat to sail the Northwest Passage, Go For It! There is no requirement that boats have to be white, grey, or boring!
Steve July 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm
RDE,
I think your observations are correct about the 50 years of American propaganda for fiberglass boats. BUT that is all we have had on the used and new market. We talk with cruisers and want to be cruisers on a daily basis about our new alu boat being built in France and they wish they could have found a good aluminum boat used, most can’t afford a new one. There just is not enough aluminum boats on the used market especially in North America for the average cruiser to become familiar with. It is changing though with this sites education of the benefits of alu. I know there are a fair amount of Aluminum boats on the market in Europe but I think many Americans get a bit nervous about buying a boat in Europe with not speaking the language and the difficulties in travel to see the boat, get a surveyor and finance the boat. Now is a great time to do so and I think Americans should take advantage of the price of the Euro and if they are interested. We get emails often from Americans wanting to know more about our Boreal 44 as they are really interested in knowing more. Maybe Jean- Francois would be willing to say how many Americans are having a Boreal built and how many are seriously interested in buying one. Until the time comes that there are more alu boats in America the Adventure 40 in glass seems the way to go for many. Now to get Americans interested in bare aluminum that may be harder. It took us awhile to get used to seeing all those happy French sailing bare aluminum boats in the S. Pacific. Now we think they are a thing of pure beauty.
Cheers
RDE July 12, 2012 at 1:56 am
Agreed, Steve
For Americans who want aluminum scarcity on the used market is a major barrier. The few that do come up are usually 1980′s flush deck old IOR race boats with no interior and deep draft keels.
Since I left my main point to the last on my earlier ramble, perhaps I should summarize:
1- Painting hull topsides is not a big expense or maintenance issue if you don’t fair the hull and stop the paint below any perforated toe rail with a clean, well defined edge.
2- Painting the deck and superstructure as the guys at Boreal do introduces more long term maintenance than painting hull topsides.
3- And of course bare aluminum has fewer maintenance issues than either painted aluminum or fiberglass with all its bolted on hardware.
Bruno July 12, 2012 at 7:08 am
don’t we have a dilema there between building a “decent but cheaper” oceangoingready boat mainly for the trade winds, or an oceangoingready capable for north or southern extremes ? (eventhough a Bavaria 44 and other GRP’s sailed NW passage),
US sailors are reknown to sail mainly GRP everywhere, but their reps in the extreme latitudes know and appreciate aluminium (painted or not) and steel,
those might are just not the same clients, the same markets,
so, which market ? how many boats ?
AAC readers and creators seem to me to be more in the second category of allrounders, or not ?
Knowing that, if the wish is to convince tradewinds sailors to buy an allround A40 alu boat, faired and painted decks/hulls might be a solution …, a bit of both worlds !
But at which price then for : 1)alu, 2)painted …
or is there a solution in getting a tough and nice painted or not (might be the only optional) aluminium hull (or more) made in Poland / roumania / mexico / philipines / brazil under supervision ?
John July 12, 2012 at 8:38 am
Hi Bruno,
Good question, cuts to the chase. Thank you.
To answer, I did not conceive the Adventure 40 as the ultimate high latitude boat and she will not morph into one. The market already has such boats, of which the Boreal 47 is my favorite. Further, there is no way to build that type of boat properly for less money than Boreal already do it. Those that want a smaller Boreal should go and talk Jean-François about building one for them.
The Adventure 40, as I conceived it, is to be a safe, fast, simple and comfortable offshore boat at a price that will allow more people, particularly first time owners, to get out offshore voyaging, whether it be a coastal passage to Newfoundland or the Bahamas or a circumnavigation of the world.
Having said that, she will be perfectly capable of sailing to say the west coast of Greenland, Svalbard, or Labrador, whether of not she is made of composites or aluminum.
John July 12, 2012 at 8:53 am
Hi All,
I think we are getting a bit mired in the detail on this whole aluminum or composite issue. The point is that, given the point I clarified in the comment above, it really does not matter. The good strong reliable boat that we envision the Adventure 40 to be can be built in both materials.
It will come down to which material will give us the strongest and most reliable hull for the lowest cost (both initial and 10 year cost of ownership) and ease of manufacturing. Making that determination is a job for a professional structural engineer working in consultation with the naval architect and builder, not us.
My guess is that the boat will end up being built of composites, but I could be wrong.
John July 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
Having just re-read this, it strikes me that I might of been a little too simplistic here. Other issues that will affect the selection of hull material will, I think be:
Ken Page July 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I personally will have no problem with an unpainted aluminum hull or house and decks. My interest in this boat is simplicity, strength and the ability to hold up with decades of use. Pretty has nothing to do with it. But if by pretty you mean someone coming along and saying something like, “that’s a tough looking boat” or , ” beautiful lines, she looks rugged and easy to sail too.” That is my kind of pretty to be proud of. Good form, simple and strong rudder and rig with quality hatches, I’ll take care of the rest.
Victor Raymond July 13, 2012 at 11:06 am
John, Richard, Bruno, Ken and Steve
There is no doubt in my mind that the Boreal 47 is the most competent production boat out there for high latitude sailing.
In addition, I have never received more compliments and inquiries on anything I have owned as I have on my 1988 Meta Dalu 47. This is surprising because now after years of neglect by the previous owner, the paint is flaking off, the canvas is faded, the running rigging functional but not pretty. Nonetheless those experienced sailors who know a tough offshore boat when they see one can’t help but marvel at the Joubert lines, clean welding and thick plate Strongall construction.
I was totally surprised but pleased to think that an alloy boat might really have a following outside of France and Netherlands. It will interesting to see the reactions after the refit. It will never be a Boreal but it is something I can afford now and with my wife and I in our mid 60′s, it is NOW or never.
Victor Raymond July 14, 2012 at 10:34 am
John,
I may also be too simplistic but Steve Dashew certainly has proven that there are educated buyers out there willing to spend big dollars for an unpainted alloy hull. I realize the Adventure 40 is a different marketplace but one can always sell the painted as an option or it can be done any time in the future.
I saw the great effort Boreal takes to paint their cockpits in white. Yes, it looks beautiful but takes time and effort to maintain. I think Collin will confirm this. Most alloy cruisers with painted hulls or cockpits that I have met have confided with me that it is not something they would do again.
I think if the value of unpainted is made clear, buyers can get past that issue. Au Naturel is beautiful!
John July 14, 2012 at 10:50 am
Hi Victor,
Good points. However, keep in mind that the Adventure 40 will have NO options, this is fundamental to the concept. And I really can’t see condemning the buyer to painting the boat after buying her at a cost of at least US$30,000.
No, it simply comes down to whether or not the target market will buy the boat unpainted in sufficient numbers to make it work. I fear not.
C. Dan July 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
As an American who has never set foot on an aluminum sailboat, my concerns would be:
1. My suspicion is it would be much more difficult and/or expensive to do any repairs/modifications in aluminum vs. GRP, especially in the US
2. While I personally am open to the aesthetics of unpainted aluminum, my S/O, whom I already have to convince to go sailing around the world, may not be. An offsetting factor may be a greater margin of safety
Jeff H July 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm
I’ll jump in here and add that I would be fine with and unpainted aluminum hull. Less stress at the dock.
Dick Churley July 16, 2012 at 7:17 am
John,
Thinking out-of-the box, why should the debate be aluminium or GRP – offer both – both materials have advantages and disadvantages as the ongoing discussion shows! You could spread the business risk by having two builders, one for each material type. Taking the debate a step further, consider an aluminium hull with internal structure, tanks, engine beds, keel, rudder, etc (ruggedness) with a GRP deck (good aesthetics and softer human/vessel interface). This type of work is being done presently (aluminium military patrol vessels requiring “bullet-proof” GRP superstructures) so the manufacturing knowledge is mature.
John July 16, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Hi Dick,
An interesting ideas, but you are scarring me: Two builders with two different materials and one of them mixing two in one boat. When it comes time to manage that lot and keep the quality and reliability high, yours truly will be in the tall timber!
C. Dan July 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Yikes! Operating leverage is the customer’s best friend when it comes time for manufacturing! Let’s not turn a $200k boat into a $300k one just yet.
RDE July 17, 2012 at 7:59 am
Hi Dick,
As you probably know there is nothing new under the sun. A number of IOR race boats were built with aluminum hulls and fiberglass or carbon decks in California in the 80′s. Jim Betts recently built the superstructure for a high speed ferry now in service in Puget Sound using that method.
Doing so on a cruising sailboat like the A40 would throw away many of the advantages and economies of all aluminum construction. Instead of a seamless deck with welded pulpits, grab rails, mast step, butt bars, anchor rollers, and chainplates you end up with a balsa cored fiberglass deck with several hundred holes in it, each one a future leak point. To say nothing of the hundred hours bolting all those hardware pieces down and cleaning up the 5200 sealant. And your hard dodger becomes a bolt-on item built in a complex mold instead of a permanent part of the boat strong enough to take the loads from the mainsheet.
Now if you really want complexity have the deck built in China, the hull in France, and assemble it in Maine. We all saw how well that worked for Boeing with their composite Dreamliner—.
Steve Gallion July 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm
As one of the interested American buyers in tbe 5-6 year range (Maybe sooner if a good financing plan emerges.), I am all for an unpainted aluminum, single or double chined hull utilizing thicker plate and minimal framing. Wood only on the interior and that kept to a minimum. I want to buy capability, low maintenance, and safety. Also, it is interesting to see chines as a selling point on some of the new fiberglass boats.
John July 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Hi Steve,
Hey, if that is what the majority of buyers want and a builder comes forward who can do it in aluminum at the price point and quality we envision, then no one will be happier than me.
Bryce Winter August 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Hi,
I’m a first-time poster drawn in by this fascinating process. By way of introduction, I’m 30 years old planning on starting cruising with my wife (27 years old) in mid 2013. We’re from Australia, currently in the US. I’ve done a bit of sailing (trans-Tasman as crew, skippered on charters in NZ, some big trips as crew on east coast of Australia, and a bit of racing and pottering on boats); my wife has not sailed much, but we’re working on that.
The wife “needs” refrigeration, but I’m a huge fan of the simplicity mantra – I intend that we’ll sail her as-is for a year or so before making any mods that we still think we need after that time.
I think I’m in the target market, and I’m keen on unpainted alu. I like the ease of maintenance and repairs and the extra security of a metal hull. That being said, I’m not a structural engineer and am fairly inexperienced, so we’ll see where the process leads to! What are people’s views on the ease of having alu repairs done in distant ports (or even in the US or Australia)?
I just hope the A40 is ready for us when we start cruising (hopefully from Europe) in mid-2013!
Cheers,
Bryce.
John August 12, 2012 at 9:05 am
Hi Bryce,
Thanks for your enthusiasm for the project.
To answer your question, you can get aluminum at least temporarily repaired in just about any port where there are commercial and/or fishing boats since they use the material for a lot of their gear and many as a hull material. Also, you can repair a hole with a plywood patch set in goop just by threading attachment holes into the plate around the hole. In short, I would say that it is actually easier to do an emergency repair on an aluminum boat, as against GRP, when in a remote place.
As to refrigeration, I’m with your wife on that one. The Adventure 40 will not come with refrigeration but it will have a well insulated two compartment ice box that can easily have refrigeration added. The required room, spare breakers, and hard patches for sea cocks will also be provided on the standard boat.
Have you signed up? It’s the single biggest thing you can do to make the boat a reality.
Bryce Winter August 12, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply – Yes, I’ve signed up and am watching the discussion closely.
Kind regards,
Bryce.
Nicolas August 12, 2012 at 5:14 am
Congratulations John!
A thought. The Adventure’s underbody is fin type keel & the rudder skeg mounted, I believe. This makes the boat liable to fouling lobster pots etc, which is an utter nuisance. My boat with a full keel has yet to foul a floating line – I like to run over lobster floats just for fun! If you could modify the underbody so that it cannot foul floating lines, surely that would be a big selling point not seen in most current designs? This does not require a full keel. The modification might not be an unacceptably large additional expense.
John August 12, 2012 at 9:39 am
Hi Nicolas,
The hull form and appendage design of the Adventure 40 has not in anyway been finalized, nor will it be until the eventually selected naval architect designs her under the watchful eye of the cabinet.
In that process, we will certainly keep in mind the dangers of creating a boat that picks up every stray piece of rope in the ocean. For this reason, I would not like to see, for example, a bulb keel with any protuberance forward.
Having said that, every boat design is a balancing process in which it is really important to keep the primary goal of the boat foremost. In the case of the Adventure 40, that primary goal is offshore comfort, immediately followed by speed. So I would not want to see any radical changes to the hull or keel that could compromise those two primary goals just to shed lobster pots more efficiently.
C. Dan August 15, 2012 at 9:46 am
“Look for it to start rolling out in the form of multiple posts in the late summer or fall when we get back from cruising Newfoundland.”
Is it late summer yet??
John August 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Hi C. Dan,
As our friends from the Eastern Caribbean say when they don’t want to be pinned down, soon come, Mon, soon come.
Bob August 24, 2012 at 4:58 am
Hi.
I vote for aluminium for the hull and deck for all the given reasons. Also:
A bulbed keel (no amount of the bulb to be forward of the keel) and the keel used for extra fuel tankage.
An aluminium mast because I think a carbon mast is more likely to be destroyed if hit by lightning.
A hard dodger that comes far enough aft to give good protection when sat under.
A German mainsheet system very like that on the J122. Including that the sheet be run under the side decks. The traveller to be on the cockpit sole in front of the wheel or on the hard dodger and the traveller control lines run to the wheel.
John August 24, 2012 at 10:47 am
Hi Bob,
Yes, but would you still want aluminum if the whole boat was unpainted, with the exception of the bottom? The point being that we are pretty sure that we can’t do the boat at the price point if there is any paint on the hull or deck.
Also, the boat will almost certainly be tiller steered. There really is no need for the added expense and complication of a wheel on a boat like this. Also tillers are easier for vane gear hook up.
RDE August 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm
re Tiller vs Wheel,
–on a boat this size with properly designed rudder the loads on a tiller are very light.
–This is an offshore boat, not a coastal daysailor. As such it will be steered by autopilot 95% of the time.
– Electric autopilots for tillers cost 1/3 as much as quadrant mounted below deck systems once you factor in installation.
–Windvane autopilots work much better on tiller steered boats.
–If the construction happens to be aluminum, a straight sided seat arrangement appropriate to tiller steering saves at least $600 in build cost and results in nice long seats for rest breaks or cockpit dining.
–An installed wheel steering arrangement with quadrant mounted autopilot will cost $4,000 to $6,000 more than a tiller system.
– It will be less reliable and harder to access for service.
–Taking manual control of the helm is much more rapid and convenient with the tiller close at hand rather than having to dodge around the wheel and assembly to get to a position of control.
– So tell me again why you would want a wheel?
RDE August 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm
And the upper rudder bearing can be mounted under the aft deck, producing an inherently stronger and stiffer system because of the distance between bearings.
Bob August 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Hello John.
Yes, I would. I don’t mind the aesthetic and I very much like the lack of potential leaking around chainplates and ports, the grounding an aluminium hull gives re. lightning and the lack of worry about maintainance of gelcoat or topside paint.
Re. tillers and wheels, I’m aware that a tiller can be used with a Says rig windvane but I’d want a Cape Horn. If the latter can be used with a tiller I’d have no objection to a tiller as long as it could be folded up tp prevent it being a spear in the cockpit.
C. Dan August 24, 2012 at 11:31 am
FWIW, I was skeptical that my significant other would find unpainted aluminum to be attractive, but I took her on a virtual tour of the Boreal 44 and she loved it.
So, count me in for unpainted aluminum (as long as she’s as pretty as the Boreal!)
John August 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Hi C. Dan,
That’s great, but do keep in mind that the Boreal has a very expensive and labour intensive fairing and painting job on the deck and cabin top/sides–the most expensive part of a boat to paint (topsides are easy). My own experience with painting aluminum and input from the builders of the Boreal indicate that such a paint job on the Adventure 40 deck and cabin top/sides would cost at least 10% of the entire budget for the boat!
The Boreal is a hand made semi-custom boat, with a half million dollar-plus price tag that can absorb those kinds of labour costs. But if we are to make the Adventure 40 work, at much less than half that cost, it must lend itself to efficient mass production which will preclude fancy paint jobs that take very skilled craftsmen to do well. The best you can hope for on an aluminum Adventure 40 is some rubberized non-skid paint in patches where required and no weld fairing or grinding. So the real question is, would you and your wife accept that?
C. Dan August 24, 2012 at 11:31 pm
I believe the topsides are bare aluminum, correct? And I wasn’t referring to the interior at all. I think a cleverly designed interior is worth more aesthetically than any number of fancy finishes. That said, I suppose there would have to be some kind of interior finish or liner? Bare aluminum interior doesn’t seem very desirable, but maybe I’m wrong.
No need for exterior paint other than whatever nonskid systems are necessary. And PLEASE no Treadmaster. Watching Tim Lackey remove that material from his boat, I think that may be the only thing more difficult than installing it.
I think we agree that aesthetics matter, even with a “budget” production boat. But if you think she’s beautiful, chances are we will too.
John August 25, 2012 at 9:09 am
Hi C. Dan,
Sorry I guess I was not clear. I was not referring to the interior either. When I said “cabin” I was referring to the cabin top. When I wrote “topsides” I was referring to the area on the outside of the hull from waterline to toe rail.
The key point in all of this is that an aluminum Adventure 40 will need to be very industrial looking, otherwise the price will start climbing fast. Ditto the cost of ownership. A GRP boat can be done with much higher quality finishes on the outside of the boat and still come in at our target price point.
So in summary, the choice is either aluminum and VERY industrial look or GRP and better looking outside finishes. If I was building for myself I would choose the former, but for a wider market the latter may be better.
Bottom line, the boat can be done in either material, but there are trade offs.
C. Dan August 26, 2012 at 12:50 am
Re: “very industrial look” I’d be curious to see an example of what you’re thinking of. Any come to mind?
paul shard August 26, 2012 at 8:46 am
Have you seen the French Allures with lovely fibreglass deck and coachroof. Plus unpainted Aluminium hull. We did look at these but ultimately went with our Southerly.
John August 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Hi Paul,
The Adventure 40 will definitely not have a GRP deck on a aluminum hull. The worst of both materials without the advantages of either, in my view.
John August 26, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Hi C. Dan,
Think total unpainted raw aluminum. Have a look at the expedition yacht “Seal“. Although the Adventure 40 would not use Treadmaster because it is too labour intensive to install (trust me on this, it is the voice of experience).
The only paint would be patches of rubberized non-skid, ending before any turn of plate because fairing is too expensive.
This may be fine for “Seal” in Antarica, but is it what you want in the south seas? (Go on deck in bright sun and step on the bare aluminum with bare feet and you would actually sustain a burn.)
Bob August 24, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Hello RDE.
I’d prefer a wheel for a number of reasons. E.g.:
Because I want a Cape Horn vane which is, as far as I know, best used with a quadrant. I certainly won’t use an autopilot 95% percent of the time – far too expensive in electricity and I prefer the motion of a boat under vane steering. Tiller based autopilots have an appalling record regarding reliability when used as the primary means of self steering. If a Cape Horn can be very effectively used with a tiller then a tiller would become an option but I would still have a below deck autopilot for use when powering and as back up. Probably a W-H or a Brooks and Gatehouse H3000. Perhaps an NKE Gyropilot 2. I wouldn’t have an Autohelm tiller pilot as a gift. A tiller will, unless folded up, always be a potential spear and that spear will be omnipresent in a cockpit of the size that the Adventure 40 will have. If you’ve ever been thrown against one your body will thank you for a wheel. All of that said, I recognise that people may accept a tiller as part of keeping the cost of the boat down. I do think that the boat should have a base specification that makes it eminently usable but I also think people should be able to spend some extra to accommodate their important caveats.
RDE August 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Hi Bob,
Like they say, different boats for different folks! I can add at least two additional advantages to having wheel steering. Facing forward is a lot easier on the neck than looking over your shoulder, and having a large screen plotter/radar/instrumentation cluster directly in front of you is an advantage unless you have a hard dodger with outside navigation like John has.
Never tried sharpening my tiller into a spear. Is that done to repel unwanted cockpit boarders? In a relatively small boat hinging the tiller up at anchor and tying it to the backstay turns your offshore sized cockpit into a place to hold a dinner party.
And yes, the Cape Horn is the one windvane that works better than any other with a wheel. However it can be set up with a tiller just as well by adding a short tiller arm below deck or running control lines directly to the cockpit tiller like the Monitor etc do. I think if you look at the inventor’s boat that he circumnavigated on you will see a tiller. With a good vane installation I’d estimate you will use your electric autopilot less than 20% of the time on a boat like the Adventure 40 while on passages. If that is the case the $3000-5000 installed cost of a premium grade quadrant autopilot like you specify starts to look excessive, especially if you have the possibility of using a cheap, low power unit below decks to drive the servo rudder and cut your energy use to the bone that the Cape Horn design makes possible.
Bob August 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Hello RDE.
You make some very good points – especially that of the Cape Horn being usable with a below deck tiller arm. That said, I’d still want a wheel – the capper reason being the need to twist sideways – my neck is old and hurts hijjus if kept turned.
Being thrown against the end of a folded down tiller can be very nasty if it doesn’t have the loop handle that is used on some race boats.
You’re right when you say that use of an autopilot would be low but even if it was less than 20% that use must be as problem free as possible. I don’t think economy should be high on the list of considerations regarding the means of self steering. While I don’t think high cost necessarily equates with quality I do think that there are items of boat equipment where it makes sense to go for best quality. And that will, 90% of the time, mean high cost.
In the final analysis it comes down to, as you say, different boats for different folks.
John August 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Hi Bob,
Just to clarify, my summary comment at the end of the post is not intended to in any way to imply that you are wrong or unreasonable in your desire for a wheel and an under deck autopilot. After all, I have both myself on “Morgan’s Cloud”. (Although I would say that if I had an 18,000 pound boat like the Adventure 40, I would go tiller every time, but that is personal preference.)
Rather my goal with that and other such summary comments is to highlight and keep everyone focused on the goal of the Adventure 40 and the compromises and sacrifices that must be made to achieve that goal of an around-the-world-capable boat brand-new for less than US$200,000.
Roger August 25, 2012 at 11:31 pm
A tillerpilot on a real offshore boat? Take a look at all the Class 40′s and similar size boats racing offshore. They all have underdeck drives attached to the quadrant. I don’t have a problem with tiller steering, but there is no way I would go offshore with a tillerpilot, even if it’s only there to drive mechanical self-steering gear. Give me a hydraulic or electric drive any day.
Leave the autopilot for owner-installation.
RDE August 25, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Hi Bob,
My neck doesn’t like being twisted as well! You might be interested in non-stop solo circumnavigator Tony Gooch’s extensive back to back test of windvane vs autopilot on his 39′ aluminum TAONUI.
http://www.taonui.com/
Bob August 26, 2012 at 12:42 am
Hi RDE.
I’ve read his article but thanks for the reference.
RDE August 26, 2012 at 12:02 am
Hi Roger,
An Open 40/50/60 is as different from a cruising boat as a Honda Pilot SUV is from a Formula 1 race car. Boats like that accelerate so fast that they run away from any attempt to steer by apparent wind, and for that reason alone windvanes haven’t been used on Open class boats for decades. See Tony Gooch’s article if you want a more relevant comparison.
And yes, if you are willing to add the necessary generator, solar panels, wind generators, battery bank, or main engine run time, modern power autopilot steering systems have come of age in terms of reliability and performance. With the latest software the small performance advantage Gooch found with the windvane may no longer hold. (But the cost difference still does!)
ps. Even some Open 60s have tiller steering.
Bob August 26, 2012 at 1:34 am
Hello all.
A boat to have a look at: http://www.yacht-design.nl/satellite/designs/northman40.html
I know that it would cost more than the Adventure 40 but elements of it could be taken on board. And I would have a single level cabin trunk and a hard dodger rather than the pilot house.
John August 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Hi Bob,
The Adventure 40 will have a hard dodger.
RDE August 26, 2012 at 10:11 am
Hi Bob,
Nice boat, and pretty close to the target. If done in Alu, check out the plate layout of the chine van de Stadt 34. If in glass, no problem although I might tend to forgo the sprit in the interest of economy, give it more bow overhang and pull the forestay back.
But all the designers work shows a good eye and design sense.
Bruno August 26, 2012 at 10:24 am
Hi,
an interesting price indication can be found hereunder from Koopmans site, based mainly on their famous one-off’s, eventhough from 2003, a percentage update should of course be applied, but optionnals can be estimated easily,
just met one of their 48′ V-shape long keel dutch classic lines in Camariñas, bought as a finished hull and deck from yard, and interior finished by owner in 5-6 years, unpainted hull and decks, monocomp antislip paint patches only on decks, a real no-nonsense rugged boat to go anywhere, looked not really industrial, just a professional offshore boat look, magnificent ! what else do we want ?http://www.dickkoopmans.nl/uk/index.htm
John August 26, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Yikes, you lot. I spend 24 hours offshore (Nova Scotia to Maine) and all hell breaks loose!
.
Here are a few thoughts, but keep in mind that I have only had three hours sleep.
First off, lets keep foremost in our minds that the Adventure 40 is to be the ultimate value in an offshore cruising boat, not the ultimate offshore cruising boat.
If you have more money to spend than the target of less than US$200,000 ready to go price, then you will happier with a more expensive boat like the Boreal 47.
We are not trying to build an all things to all people boat here. And please don’t make the error of buying an Adventure 40 and then loading her with every piece of fancy cruising kit you can find–you will not be happy, trust me.
To hit that price point things will have to be kept simple and that almost certainly means a tiller and no under deck autopilot since those two items would, all by themselves, add up to 5 to 10% of our target price. And plenty of people have sailed around the world happily without either.
Keep in mind that each piece of fancy gear added will have two negative results:
1). There will be less money available to build a really strong and reliable hull and rig. For example, the money saved on the wheel alone will allow us to build a bomb proof rudder and keel. A keel that can take a full speed grounding without damage, other than a dent in the leading edge. A capability that will go much further to making your cruising life happy than any amount of gear.
2). The cost of ownership will go up…a lot.
RDE August 27, 2012 at 10:52 am
Below decks autopilot:
The interesting thing about the Cape Horn wind vane is that it drives the rudder from a below deck line attachment between the servo rudder and the quadrant or short tiller arm. This allows a tiller pilot ram to be installed below decks to take the place of the wind vane when desired. Since the ram only needs to supply the same force as the wind did, loads are extremely light and power consumption minimal because the actual steering forces come from the wind vane servo rudder. Autopilot life expectancy should be greatly enhanced as well. A completely different situation than using the force of the ram to directly move the rudder as in the case of a tiller pilot mounted to the main tiller or wheel system quadrant.
A $1,000 bill buys a Raymarine X-5 system with separate gyro compass, control head, adaptive algorithms, and all the interface capability of the larger direct systems. If, for instance a shark ate your wind vane system, the tiller ram could be moved to the cockpit to directly drive the tiller as a back-up to the servo rudder drive arrangement.
I can’t recommend the Cape Horn vane or the X-5 because I have no direct experience with either, but that’s the set-up I’d try first on my new A-40 and report back after the first 10,00 miles!
Andre Langevin September 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Just a tought on the price from the guy who is already in its boatbuilding spreadsheet. I am in the last 5% of the building of a 45 feet “go anywhere” steel sailboat with stainless steel deck. “Dériveur integral” as the French says… which mean flat bottom that can beach and no weight in the swing keel. Two rudders 1 meter draft go anywhere sailboat. For a slight decrease in close reaching, there are huge benefits of having only 1 meter of draft when needed. I will never have a boat with a fixed keel anymore…
175 000$ for a boat the size of the Adventure 40 is not possible unless it comes out with no mast and sails. I have a complete list of cost items for my boat from the first plate of steel that I purchased in 2008 to the life raft this year and although I made all the economy possible, not counting my time, the list is huge and the price hefty. We are talking 6k$ per feet for a very basic boat no equipment to 10k$ per feet equiped. I don’t think such a boat as the Adventure can be built in less than 3000 hours even cutting down the time in the interior finishing. With 175000 $ you are just covering the time and the hull material…
If you want to discuss it or exchange price information, please feel free to email me.
C. Dan September 12, 2012 at 12:27 am
Andre,
I am sure yours is a well-designed and efficiently-built custom boat, but it cannot have taken advantage of the most important element that would bring down the cost of the A40 project: economies of scale.
CD
John September 12, 2012 at 9:32 am
Hi Andre,
Thanks very much for writing and offering to help out with the Adventure 40 project. However, overall length is not a valid parameter to use to compare the costs of two boats, so please advise the displacement of your boat, preferably half load, expressed in pounds or kg to avoid confusion around the three different tons.
Also please understand that the Adventure 40 will not be a “French Type” lifting appendage boat.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Andre Langevin September 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Hello John,
The boat dry weight is 14000 kg and in working order it is closer to 15000 kg. There is a 1000 kg cargo. The boat sank 2.57 cm per metric ton.
Of all the people who i have talked with, one of the most desirable feature was low draft. This is a feature of the catamaran and also of the “deriveur” which are very popular in Europe. I really wonder why people this side of the ocean are not interested in these feature but if you have european customers they will invariably want to compare with their local offering.
As for C. Dan “economy of scale” i completely agree. I purchased all my parts through distributors (never retail) and i was in a purchasing group where we purchased for 50 000 $ of parts each month so we had very good price. When i was building my boat there were part of the project were it would have been beneficial to already have built 2-3 boats of the same design before. I would have saved the time to CAD draw the parts that i had laser cut. Many templating also especially in the interior. But that would be around 20 % global max. It is still need to assemble and make all the things work and test them. Here are the ratio of hours i have recorded (roughly):
1/3 of the time for the hull (metal work complete)
1/3 of the time for the interior
1/3 of the time for the different subsystem of the boat (mechanic, steering, electric, plumbing, electronic, rigging)
Andre
John September 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Hi Andre,
Once again, thank you so much for taking the time to share this very useful information.
However, I don’t think comparing your costs and experience with the Adventure-40 is really going to tell us anything because the boats are just too different for this to be meaningful:
Having said that, I’m sure your information will be of great use to those of our readers that are contemplating a project like yours, so thanks again.
On the low draft issue. I certainly hear you, but, as I have said before, we are not trying to build a boat to compete with the French retractable appendage boats. Boreal already does that brilliantly and I have no interest in trying to reinvent that wheel, if for no other reason than the fact that they would eat my lunch! Above all the Adventure 40 will be simple and retracting appendages add a level of complication and expense.
Andre Langevin September 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Hello John,
I understand we cannot compare boats and that Adventure has a different program than my boat and this is all right. Here are a few explanations for people envisaging to build a boat with a swing keel(if any) When i was contemplating the plans for my boat… i was puzzled by what i thought being a complexity but when building it, i draw the keel box on CAD and also the keel pattern on CAD. Then i had the metal laser cut and delivered on a pallet. The whole process of constructing the keel, the keel box, welding the keel box to the bottom of the boat and building the lifting mechanism rounded to approximately 50 hours.
The system is simple, the keel is about 7 feet long, 3 feet high and 2 inch large. It weight 300 pounds. It swings around a UHMW 4 inch wide bearing and it is lifted by a rope arriving to a winch in the cockpit. Lifting the keel is 30 second winching. Droping it is 5 seconds.
But the bottom has to be flat at midship, on my boat it is a 3/8 of inch of steel plate (which act in part as ballast) permitting a very strong bond with the keel box and authorizing the boat to be beached. The ballast is placed onto this thick plate floor inside of the boat.
It is very important to understand that a when a boat is made with a swing keel and the keel is not ballasted, the righting moment doesn’t change with either the keel up or down. Only the hydrodynamic center is moving. It is exactly like sailing a windsurfing board. When you are reaching you enter the appendage, when you are beating your drop it down to compensate the force of the wind.
Furthermore those boats are very safe with 3/4 stern waves because when caught in such a system, we lift the keel. Then broaching forces can no longer swing the boat. When a slapping stern wave comes, the boat offers no resistance under… and if the wave is strong enough to turn the boat, since there is no keel to act as a pivot, the boat simply slides away. In fact it is a little bit more complicated than that, the boat without a keel convert the broaching moment into a rolling moment if the wave is not a true 180 degree to the center of the boat. But we all know that a 180 degree wave is not dangerous, it is those waves coming from 120 to 160 degrees which put the boat at risk in a real blow.
The concept is thus very safe, the only drawback is that a keel like a swing keel can not have a great deal of hydrodynamic lift because the slot in the hull is very small. Thus not the same close reaching perfomance as a real keel.
Andre
Eric Bretscher September 30, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Andre,
You are correct when you say that the position of the keel does not meaningfully impact the centre of gravity or stability of your boat, but what you are not saying is that you either need considerably more ballast than what would be found in a fixed keel to achieve the same stability, or must accept a reduced sail carrying ability because of the lower righting moment. Most centreboarders come as a compromise between the two.
These two factors alone rule out this kind of configuration for John’s A40. These guys want a fairly light boat carrying a substantial rig. This in turn calls for carrying a moderate amount ballast low down in order to get the most benefit out of it: implicitely they are looking towards a (possibly hollow) strut and bulb type of configuration.
Best regards,
Eric
Andre Langevin September 30, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Eric,
the Chatam 43 that i have comes in two flavors, fixed keel and centerboard (non ballasted). There is a 300 kg (on 4000kg) difference in ballast between the two models, the centerboard needs more ballast to compensate the heigh of the ballast. But the ballast being closer to the hull thus the movement in the water is softier than with a ballast lower. Of course weight down below means a higher stability curves but we all know that it is never the wind that put a boat at risk regarding the stability of a boat. It is the waves. And a centerboard has one advantage compared to keeled boats in this aspect. This is a compromise between overall security and performance. When you add on top of that the capacity to go almost everywhere with less than 1 meter of draft and a flat bottom than can support the weight of the boat, this is for me the sense of a real “exploration boat”
But there are plenty of boat styles and i understand the Adventure 40 is for a a specific “program” and thus i just want to supply information, not to challenge the design of the Adventure 40.
cheers
John October 1, 2012 at 7:33 am
Hi Andre,
Great summary of the trade offs and advantages of centerboard boats, thank you.
John October 1, 2012 at 7:41 am
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the great comment summarizing the stability trade offs.
One thing though: I don’t think the Adventure 40 will have, or need, such a high tech keel as you suggest. My worry with such keels is that they can make the motion fast and uncomfortable due to too low a center of gravity and they also have such a short span of keel to hull joint that it is very difficult to make the assembly strong enough to take a high speed grounding without substantial damage. Finally, as I understand it, such high lift keels tend to stall easily and therefore result in a boat with a very narrow steering “grove”.
The final keel configuration will rest with the designer, but right now I’m thinking of a modernized Scheel type, probably cast in lead in one piece.
bruno September 29, 2012 at 12:17 am
Hi,
had a look on this modern version of a fast ocean cruiser recently introduced on the french market ?
there are some good ideas there for sure …
http://www.attitude-ocean.com/la-gamme/ocean-35/
John September 29, 2012 at 8:59 am
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for the link. A very interesting boat. We are seeing a sudden flurry of these very light, wide stern, relatively low cost, boats from France these days. We can certainty learn from them, however the Adventure 40 will be a very different hull form that will be much more comfortable offshore and still fast. More coming in a few days.
bruno September 29, 2012 at 9:06 am
Hi john,
indeed a bit too much of a ULDB and modern sterns, i agree, but if you look further, many parts of the concept have been kept simple and made for ocean voyaging mixing old and new receipts … take a bit of it all and for sure we’ll reach the compromise you are looking for, i’m unpatient …
John September 29, 2012 at 10:05 am
Hi Bruno,
Exactly as you say.
Not much longer to wait, Phyllis is editing my next Adventure 40 post as I write.