Setting The Adventure 40 Free


After the Eric de Jong designed Adventure 40 came to naught frankly, my first inclination was to simply say screw it, take all the Adventure 40 chapters down, and get on with my life and running this site.

But there’s a better way:

A New Model

I’m made the Adventure 40 available to anyone who wants to build the boat.

  • No licensing fee for using our specification.
  • No equity in a company that builds the boat.
  • No licensing fee for calling the boat the Adventure 40.

Zero, zip, nada.

Sweet Deal

And yes, this is a pretty sweet deal. For absolutely free, a building company gets:

  • A specification for a boat based on my experience, that has been improved and battle-hardened by two thousand comments.
  • A known viable market for said boat. (Yes, there are people waiting in the wings who say they are ready to make a deposit.)
  • A framework for a company that will be able to build this boat at a profit.

Sweet Resource

Even if a person or company is not interested in building an Adventure 40, there’s value here as a specification to:

  • Measure prospective secondhand boats against.
  • Provide ideas while designing larger and more complex boats or even smaller and even simpler ones.
  • Provide a framework for those building their own boat.
  • Provide ideas and a gear list for those refitting an older boat.

Still Copyrighted

That said, I do need to make clear that all of my writing remains copyrighted with all rights reserved. You can use it to build a boat, but you can’t copy it and publish it in any way without my express written permission.


Of course, like open source software, all of this will be provided on an as-is basis: you get to use it all, but that’s all you get.

So if a company or an individual building the boat wants me to, for example:

  • Clarify or explain a point.
  • Expand on a chapter in more detail.
  • Advise on a design decision.
  • Visit the prototype and advise on changes.
  • Advise on marketing or sales.

I will charge for my time and expenses. Not only is this fair to me, it’s also fair to you, the members of Attainable Adventure Cruising, since you will no longer be subsidizing my work on the Adventure 40.

Of course, AAC members will still be able to comment and ask questions on anything I write about the boat.

And, if you think about it, this is totally in keeping with the Adventure 40 unbundling core principle.

I’m a Reporter Only

I will continue to write about developments with the Adventure 40 without charging anyone, but as an unbiased reporter, not as a promotor of the boat, and only if I think that the article will be of interest to the membership.

And better still, now that I have no financial interest—not even a nebulous future one, as I did before (possible royalty)—in the Adventure 40, I can truly be unbiased, both in fact and in appearance.


One more thing while I’m writing about my new direction. I hereby warn everyone involved in the Adventure 40 not to give me any information that they don’t want to see published—I will not be bound by any requests for confidentiality or non-disclosure.

I have always thought that the whole project should be totally open, warts and all, but now I’m making that official.

Straying From The Straight and Narrow

Of course there is a 800 pound gorilla in the room: What happens if someone builds a boat that does not meet the Adventure 40 specification as we created it on this site? 

I will call them out in an article. And nope, there will be no compromising. Great boats are not created by compromise, they are created by vision and sticking with that vision.

Sure a builder can call a junk boat the Adventure 40, but how many will they sell after I, and all the people here in the AAC readership who have given so much in the comments, call them out on it?


I know this new direction might come as a shock and even a disappointment to many of you but, after much thought, I do think it’s the best way forward and one that will result in a better boat in the long run.

Further Reading


If you have questions or suggestions or, best of all, want to help make the Adventure 40 happen, please leave a comment.

Like what you just read? Get lots more:

Learn About Membership

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting. I’ll need to think more about this before I comment.

Oscar Kramer

Sorry to hear about the new developments but I think this new “open source” model is workable. I have been involved in an open source software project for many years that has succeeded in making money for companies involved. You mentioned wanting to get paid to fill in gaps in the spec or to clarify a point. Absolutely. That’s how our company (and other’s that contribute) have made money. But, any information you provide must go into the “open-source” knowledge pool. The same goes for other professionals that contribute design ideas and details, paid or not. The knowledge pool grows. The one sticky point though is that this model requires “moderators” that can review and either accept or reject contributions. That’s a bit of work and should be supported financially through ongoing member contributions (or the builder?).

David e Bell

While I can’t imagine owning an Adventure 40, I would be interested in using my various skills to help move the project forward.

Richard Dykiel

Sigh…. Would it be worth starting a topic about current production boats that could be considered as “best second choice” compared to an A40? That’s for people that won’t be able to wait for an A40. And, because they might be more expensive than the A40, discuss the production boats that are voyaging-capable in the 34-40ft range?



No matter how this project goes on, I want to thank you profoundly for the work you’ve published on the subject. To me it made me realise many things about my needs and wants in a cruising boat and I gave me valuable input on the many topics I had no clue about.

As life happens, just when I was ready to make commit to the Adventure 40, a used semi-custom 44ft-er in aluminium from a German designer appeared on the market, that hit many of your principles straight on, down to the massively over-engineered winches and Blake Toilet. Even with the size, the inside is more of a wide 34ft boat and sleeps just 5, one of them in the saloon. The experience this year showed, it is set up to single-hand it comfortably despite its size.

Well, stupid things happen and I fell in love. As the boat gave a very consistent and honest impression even at close inspection, I took the plunge.

Many thanks to you, Colin and all the other posters here for your work. You helped me a lot and kept me from doing even more stupid things.

Erik de Jong

I very much regret that John and I are not continuing on this project together. Unfortunately, a lot has happened in my life, followed by some differences of opinion between John and myself. Now I am in the position to work on the design full time.

Kip and I have been working together for a few weeks to make the boat happen. Kip has taken the role of project manager and I’m focusing on wrapping up the design. John has decided that he wants out, Kip and I regret this, but respect John’s wish.

Stein Varjord

Hi John

To make anything happen, one needs to make choices / decisions. To make anything good, one needs to change ones mind about many of those decisions, a lot of times. This post might, for some readers, look like bad news, but I actually think it’s rather pointing towards promising development.

It proves John does indeed have the ability to change his mind, even on painful topics, if that seems to be the right choice. To me, it looks like a wise move. It may create clarity and motivation for those who need to make things happen. Freedom is scary, but feels great and promotes progress. It may also be a healthier division of roles in the project, liberating John too, to think creatively rather than defensively. Making it easier to keep a birds wiew, noticing details, seing real priorities and pointing them out clearly.

I think there should still be some financial benefit to John and this site for the creation of the project and linking it to an actual market, even specific customers. That might be just it: The list of interested people. Each of them actually paying a boat could release an amount to AAC / John. The fee could be similar to the marketing cost it would normally take to make a sale….?


I would like to introduce myself to the AAC community and say that I am excited to be working on the project! Reading about the Adventure 40 on has really inspired me, and I want to create the most capable cruising boat out there.

Erik and I have put our heads together, and with some guidance from John we have come up with a plan that will ensure we are on track and that we have a prototype sailing as soon as we can secure funding. This project wouldn’t have happened without the help of AAC and it’s readership and for that we are incredibly thankful. John’s experience will be very helpful in the future so this will likely not be the last that you hear about the boat.

I would like to invite anybody who is interested in helping with the project or that has any questions to contact me at moc.liamg@staobliaserohsffo. If you are thinking about purchasing a boat feel free to get in touch as well.


Jean-François Eeman

Hi Kip,

I wish you all the best with your involvement in the project.

Maybe this will sound blunt to you : You wish to introduce yourself to the AC Community but you do not say who you are… nor what you are up to…

You suggest everybody who is willing in helping the project should write you.
I guess a lot of people are or would be.
But does it not sound fair to you we should know to whom we are writing ?
Who are we (consdering) helping ?
To whom do we write we are thinking about purchasing a boat ?

If you or others think my remark is irrelevant I’ll be happy to hear it

Jean-François EEMAN



As John has mentioned in his post I am an entrepreneur who will be taking the role of project management over for Erik so he can focus fully on his designs. While I like to maintain my privacy online I can tell you a little about myself:

I live in the SF Bay Area and have close ties to silicon valley, and a very good understanding of how to properly raise capital through the channels available here. I have already started one sailing related business, where I learned a lot about prototype development. I have been a competitive dinghy racer for 7 years and when I was captain of my colleges sailing team we raised close to $20,000 through crowdfunding so I am familiar with the platform.

Like many of us here I dream of leaving shore life and cruising full time for an extended period, and while I was researching boats in which I could do that I came across this website. I thought that a boat such as the one described here would be the ideal fit for me and, hearing that he needed help, got in touch with John.

Stein Varjord

Hi KIp.

Thanks! Nice to get a “face” for the name. 🙂 What you say indicates that you are a good match to help the project move forward. It will be fun to watch. As mentioned by others, I think it would be smart to keep feeding this site with information as much as possible. Most likely most of the customers, for the first few years at least, are already here. It’s amazing, of course, to have a market waiting for you, even ready to put down money, crowdfunding or otherwise, but it’s also a challenge:

Your dealings before there are any boats, might mean just as much for your credibility as what you do when boats start hitting the water. In this, I firmly believe in openness whenever possible. I think it’s smart to make an agenda on when to present news. From pro racing I learned a lot: Off season, all sponsors got an email with something interesting once a month. In season they got an email once a week. During events they got one every day or more. We also had a lot of other marketing routines, but the potential buyers on this site have a position that emotionally resembles sponsors. Keeping the issue alive with frequent small (but always interesting) drips of info, will fuel enthusiasm and loyalty.

A very powerful tool to boost interest, enthusiasm and loyalty is this simpel rule from media: Make it personal. People like to know about people, not things. That is true even for sailing nerds. 🙂 I don’t mean that you should tel about your private lives, but I do think you should try to incorporate you as individuals in the story of the project towards the Adventure 40. Pictures with people are better than pictures without people. Stories just as much so. To make the reader have feelings, the people in the story must have feelings. Sounds mushy, but it’s truth I’ve seen proven so many times that I don’t consider it debatable. 🙂



Thanks for the advice and encouragement! I will be a presence on this forum in the future so I’m sure you all will get a better “picture” of me through continuing comments. You sound like you have done some really exciting sailing in the Pro circuit. I am also trying to get more serious with my racing, and want to compete in many of the California Offshore regattas, including a TransPac! I really enjoy the methodical approach to offshore sailing as compared to the frantic nature of small boats.


PS. I got your email but it may take me some time to get back to you. I like to give a thought out response to every email and I have gotten many many emails from AAC readers in the last couple of days.

Robert B

Hi Kip – Would you mind sharing a little more about your experience in project management and endeavors like the A40 project? I think that’s what J-F was getting at. “Entrepeneur” is a bit ambiguous.

Is there a formal business plan? Do you know what you are planning to offer an investor or a crowd funder?




These are valid concerns and as they are very serious to the future of our business, not something that Erik or I take lightly. However I do have a life outside of the Adventure 40 and often do volunteer work over the weekends at a local sailing center, so it seems a bit unreasonable to expect me to be on this website 24/7. As you say it is a critical moment in our journey, and that is why Erik and I are focusing very hard on organizing ourselves and developing a realistic and feasible business plan. That is not something that happens overnight, and at this point we have only been working together for a little over a week.

As for revealing the identity of the builder that Erik has been in contact with, that would just be bad business. Especially since we are reviewing all our options and have not decided to go with any specific builder as of yet. We will likely not decide on a builder until the designs are finished and we can get a price quote from prospective companies. Erik is hard at work on the designs but having to take time away from designing to comment will slow him down considerably. He says that it is fine to leave his drawings up in their current format.

I want to be clear that we are not “circling the wagons” and we are not trying to take readership away or “split” the community here. Our door is always open and anybody is welcome to contact us for any reason related to our boats, our mission, financing, or just to talk sailing :).



If anyone wants to go sailing now at a cheaper price in a boat which I believe is comparable to the Adventure 40 in a lot of ways but fully equipped, see the Alan Payne Skookum Yacht advertisement on this site.

Rob Hamilton

Hi John,
It seems to me that things have settled into a state that more naturally reflects the aspirations of all the people involved in the project and this can only be a positive move. It seemed to me that your primary purpose was always to make a contribution by focusing attention on the core values and principles on what a safe and comfortable sailboat for a realistic budget should be. As a follower of the project I was never entirely sure what Erik’s motivation in the project was. To not have a financial reward incentive is fine in the initial stages when everybody is sharing their common passion, but as the project matures and it starts demanding serious time and effort to execute it there needs to be a strong motivation to prioritise it. Without reward it is hard to imagine how there could be an expectation of accountability on deliverables such as adherence to timelines.
It seems that not only has the Adventure 40 been set free to be driven by the interests of stakeholders involved, but it has also set you free to comment freely and monitor the integrity of the project and hold it accountable to the founding principles without the need to consider the interests of the stakeholders in the comment.
I believe the considerable interest shown in the project was never due to design, size, builder or even a price point, but a buy in to the core principles. As long as this “constitution” is in place and there is accountability to it the project will be able to take shape around it with the flexibility of interest that could lead to production boats on the water.
All Hail to the originator who has shown such keen insight expressed with such integrity of purpose, clarity and eloquence. I hope the importance of adherence to the core principles is clearly understood or we will all be reflecting in future on what could have been. I will probably never own an Adventure 40, but I already own a sound perspective on what to look for in a boat that will be a safe and comfortable home. For this I am profoundly thankful.

Marc Dacey

This is not only the best way forward, it is probably the only way forward for the Adventure 40 concept. I always got the firm impression, John, that you would rather have been a guiding light in the darkness than a work light in the bilges, and this move puts you back on the sidelines doing “the vision thing” to which I suspect you originally aspired. It’s funny you should mention the Saga 43…that was my “lottery-win” choice before I committed to an utterly different boat, which I am going down this cold afternoon to work on…

I think I will not be alone in remarking that this phase of the A40 journey has been very illuminating of a certain approach to cruising that I do not see reflected in most modern production boats. I hope that the A40 gets built. I still buy lottery tickets, after all.

Warren Cottis

This is a very interesting Thread and here’s how I read the Play so far…

The Adventure 40 had substance because it was a Project supported by the substance of this website.

John with love for the Project but Frustration with Erik threw the Project open to other backers.

Erik and Kip quickly circled the wagons to close out the possibility of other possible backers.

Kip was called out to substantiate who he was and replied that in truth he has no existing financial backing for the Project.

So as I see it right now… there’s no Money and there’s No Timeline for the project to happen.

If John doesn’t Pull This Together, the Adventure 40 will just fade away and eventually be removed from this website.

Hope I’m wrong…

Warren Cottis

Hi John

When I said “John… Pull This Together” I didn’t mean that you had to build the yachts. I meant Somebody needs to be the Ringmaster and I was suggesting that is you.

I believe the next step is for Erik and Kip to revisit the financial numbers… determine the setup costs and operating costs for 12 months to establish a Base Level of Capital that needs to be raised… and map out a Strategy for raising it… whilst checking the potential for sales in that period from people who have expressed interest and the general market.

You as the Ringmaster would allocate them a period of time to do that and it is made public to the interested members here.

If that date comes and goes without success then everyone understands that the Project will be open to other backers.

Words > Timeline > Action…
Without a Firm Timeline, Projects drift along in my humble opinion.

Warren Cottis

Hello again John,

You made a very valid comment when you said there are maybe many people watching the development of this Thread who might be whole or part backers of the Project.

For instance, you’ve never heard me post before.

So may I say again…

You opened the Door to other potential backers with this Thread…

But then Erik and Kip have closed wagons and no other potential backer will want the political situation that currently exists.

So I think you need to set a New Target Date for Erik and Kip to deliver so everyone watching passively or otherwise knows what is happening.

And to everyone including Stein, I’m just trying to bring some business objectiveness to what I have read recently in the face of expressed frustrations. I have no intention of pushing my way into a Forum on a Project where there has already been a wealth of valuable contributions.

Warren Cottis

I forgot the stalemate bit…

There’s no Money and there’s No Timeline for the project to happen but other possible backers now will find this a stalemate of Founders’ positions.

Bill Attwood

The website “” does not inspire confidence either. Although “our yachts” was empty yesterday, it has been populated with Bagheera and the Adventure 42 today, albeit with no real information about either. If this is the “new start” for the Adventure 40, then forget it. The gestation process for the A40 was professional in all senses of the word. John’s business background, and the contributions of the AAC community produced something that truly earned that overused expression, a paradigm change.
I wonder why Kip is so apparently shy of exposing himself to the AAC community. Does he believe that dinghy sailing in college and raising 20 k dollars are qualifications appropriate for the job, or that they will impress future A40 customers? As John points out succinctly, the window of opportunity for the new team to win the confidence of its potential customers is closing. If they don’t immediately address the concerns raised above, then the new start will be stillborn.
I’m not a customer for the A40, but it is a project that deserves better than this.
In sadness, but with hope (the last thing to die I am told)

Stein Varjord

Hi Warren and Bill.

No doubt you have knowledge and reason, but what is the core intention of what you serve in these last comments? What is the attitude? What is the effect on the interested here and on those trying to make things happen. Do you think it is better to promote ones own besserwisser position or is it better to try to contribute with positivity? Do you wish it to succeed or do you wish to sabotage it with naysaying?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but the group of questions might give you an idea of my impression from reading your comments. To put it bluntly, I don’t much like that impression. I hope it’s just me reading it more negatively than it’s meant.

Bill Attwood

Hi Stein
I’m sorry if you took my comments as sabotage, nothing could be further from my wish to see the A40 project succeed. I have read through the full catalogue of comments again, and don’t see any unjustified criticisms. We are not looking to Kip and Eric as “mates” but as the two people on whom the success of the A40 will depend. They will have to behave in a much more professional manner if they are to obtain funding and get the project off the ground. John made it very clear that he has big time worries. I guess the next few days will show whether Kip and Eric have what is needed. Warren’s comment provides a pretty good checklist for the things they need to address asap.
All that being said, I shall certainly try to adopt a milder tone in future comments.
Yours aye

Robert B

John – Who controls the list of interested buyers? From a capital raising perspective, that’s the only thing that matters.

I don’t think Erik and Kip would go do their own thing with the A40. That would not be a good business move. I suspect they are a bit overwhelmed with the recent feedback, deserved or not.


Stein Varjord

Hi John, Bill and Warren.

I agree that there may be fair reaons for feeling frustrated. My main point is just that acting fairly is not the same as acting smartly. All here want the Adventure 40 to be built, i assume. Negativity might be justifiable but it’s rarely contributing to any progress. Enthusiasm does. Pointing out flaws can be done by presenting positive advice. That’s WAY more efficient in making the message work than presenting ones own frustrated feelings.

Rob Hamilton

Hi John,
I think you need to secure the name Adventure 40 before this goes any further. Maybe some of the legal pundits here could be of assistance in how to do this. It also requires you to immediately dissociate yourself and the name from Erik and Kip’s project. The name and the inspiration behind the concepts you have set out is the essence and driver of the project. Without this there is no following and consequently there will be no project. I believe you need to award a designer and project manager/builder the rights to manufacture the boat under the name Adventure 40. Open the project up “to tender” which will be awarded on the basis of a sound “business plan”. The winning tender would have the name and the support of the AAC as long as it conformed to the established principles. The tender should attract a submission fee that would cover the scrutinizing by an appointed panel that should review the “tender” across all aspects such as:
• The compliance with the initial non negotiable design and execution principles
• The suitability of the design
• The financial sustainability of the project
• The compliance to set timelines
The business plans could be published on the AAC site for comment with full transparency. You maintain the principle of the final say already well established and trusted by your readers. They of course have their rights maintained by the decision to buy or not.
If the business plan is in your opinion not sufficiently adhered to at any time the name and backing can be withdrawn and the process restarted with new accountability. By doing this everybody who has bought into the concept of the Adventure 40 will have the comfort of knowing that the founding principles are maintained and there is ongoing accountability to them. The consortium (likely to be) would have the considerable benefit of a referral of the highest reputation and an already established market to exploit. This seems to me to set a realistic platform for risk and reward for everybody involved.

Rob Hamilton

Hi John

Please forgive me for beating this to death, but there are so many positive aspects to the Adventure 40 concept that it would be truly sad for it not to find expression on the high seas.
The passionate following of the project means that I am not alone in this sentiment.
I get your fear about being buried in involvement in the project, but can this not be limited to your holding those that want to take it on accountable in the court of public opinion, ably led by yourself, without liability?

Consider a likely scenario where Erik and Kip build and start selling a boat called the Adventure 40 that does not conform to the founding principles. By association, at least initially, you will be linked to the ill-conceived boat. No doubt you would express your critical views through the AAC forum leading to the likely demise of the initiative. The negativity around the poisoned chalice will very likely stop any other suitors coming to the banquet in future. The success of the project is inextricably linked to the endorsement by the AAC. The principles, and a significant number of design elements, are already in the public domain which potentially can enable any number of outfits to build a boat that would deliver on the founding principles. Without the endorsement of the AAC they are highly unlikely to succeed as the essence of the project is not palatable to the typical tyre kickers found at boat shows around the world.

The point about all of this rationale John is that there is a way in which you can maintain the influence without the complexity of an arduous involvement or liability. It seems to me that the AAC opinion in itself would be enough to ensure the integrity of a project that would deliver a production boat that conforms to principles that makes such good sense to so many of the members on your forum. There is simply no one else who can do this job. There are however potentially many businessmen who could put the project together, boatyards that could build the boat and designers that could design a boat to conform. Why not limit your involvement to an expression of an AAC opinion led by yourself regarding all aspects of the project even if there are 2 or more simultaneous “bids” concurrently competing for the informal endorsement of the AAC? It makes sense for there to be constant commentary on the project which of course would only be possible if there was very good transparency on all aspects of the process. If there was a lack of transparency it would in itself be a reason for critique and the obvious consequences for the consortium building the boat.

You might want to look at this as a competition where competitors build a boat and the prize at the end is the expressed measure to which the product conforms to the rules of the competition. This informal endorsement would have huge impact on the success of the venture. The advantage that competitors would have is the constant feedback regarding their progress along the way which would enable them to constantly re-align their efforts to the expressed opinion. There are many precedents for endorsements of products you have found to be superior on the AAC and this could be another with as little liability in the opinion as with them.

The project has been fascinating in spite of all the ups and downs along the way and the potential for on-going interest and learning in the following of such a project might be, is in itself, enough.

Dave Hopkins

Hi John, Last night at bedtime I told my wife about the news regarding the Adventure 40. At that stage I had not read the comments. I was very enthusiastic & my wife said ‘you really want that boat don’t you’. To this i replied,’yes I do’. This morning I read the comments & my BS metre went off the dial. Erik & Kip cannot deliver the Adventure 40. This is how I feel. Cheers Dave. Have to go & move the boat.

Marc Dacey

It is not uncommon for those of an engineering or technical bent to be indifferent to this need. I’m not suggesting that this is necessarily the case here, but we’ve all encountered the mechanical genius who is a person of next-to-no-words. Often, it’s part of the reason they’ve gone into the trade in the first place: for the relative quiet and the sparse population.

Erik de Jong

Dear John & the AAC Community,

Kip and I have decided after much thought that we cannot build the Adventure 40 as it conforms to the specifications on John’s website. We both have the same main goal in mind, to create a reliable, safe, comfortable, strong boat that comes at a very good price. However we feel that there are a number of technical differences that we cannot justify to our future customers. I have spoken in person to a lot of people, and have sailed with some, that are interested in purchasing the A40. There are some design and marketing decisions that we cannot defend. These would be:

1. No options: One person has offered me to pay extra if the arch could not be delivered with the boat, another person asked me if the boat could be delivered without sails because he is a sailmaker himself and refuses to sail with sails from a different brand than his own. Another person asked me how we can claim that it is a turnkey ready offshore boat if it doesn’t even have a depth sounder installed. Another one asked me why the boat will be white, we all know that white is the hardest color to spot out at sea when the weather turns bad, that contradicts with making the boat as safe as possible. These are just some simple examples and I’m sure there are dozens or even hundreds more. Making some things optional does not reduce the quality of the boat, and has practically no influence on the cost, if any it is possible to reduce cost for prospective buyers by leaving items off if they think they are not on their ‘must list’.
2. Gear differences: I have sailed, refitted and maintained boats that have covered uncountable numbers of miles. That has resulted in gear selection for my own boat that now has been tested for 8 years and 50,000 miles. I hate gear failures as much as you do, and I prefer to sail my boat instead of working on her. But none of the items that you do not want have ever failed me and are significantly cheaper and more readily available in every part of the world, compared to the gear you recommend. That is not something I can defend to potential buyers.

3. Selling a 42 footer and calling it a 40 footer is considered misleading where I come from, we would also be hard pressed to find a builder that would go along with that.

So to that effect we will be re-branding our boat to the Offshore 42. This boat will be very similar to what is specified in John’s posts but different in the ways outlined above. In conjunction with the re-branding we are launching our own website, This is not intended to take readership away from AAC or seal us off from the community that has worked so hard to make this boat as great of an idea as it is. But this is where we take the project from idea to reality, and we need our own platform to do that. If desired, we will still provide John and AAC with updates on our progress as it is made, and we are always open to suggestions, advice, and offers of assistance. Our door is always open and you can contact us on the email moc.liamg@staobliaserohsffo with any questions.


Hi Erik,
I have looked on the new design of your boat (O 42) and I see that you moved the heads to the bow. Any reasons for this?
In my experience, if I’m on watch, wet and want to go to the toilet, I don’t want to go thru all the boat to do my thing….



Very keen of you to notice. Erik and I are still working on a final interior spec, deciding between these two options. The main issue with having the toilet aft with the shower is that toiletries & toilet paper will be exposed to high amounts of water & steam, as would any cabinet built to house them. Unless an adequate ventilation system for a cabinet or other method of preventing water is found we see the need to keep the shower and toilet separate.

If you are standing a wet watch, you can still take you gear off and hang it in the shower before going to the bathroom with this layout. Not ideal but neither is mold in your head.



Hi Kip,

Mold will only develop on organic material. So it makes sense to build the cabinet in the bathroom with non-organic material if you are concerned about mold. I completely agree with John and Taras on the position and functionality of the head as per the old design.


Lars Erik Karlsen

I dont understand the problem with soggy toiletpaper. In my Sweden Yachts, with shower and toilet in same room, the toilet paper is simply placed on the inside of the door under the wash basin. It works fine. Unfortunate my toilet is placed forward in my boat. Dont do that in Offshore 42.

michael f

exactly as Lars says: protect the toilet paper behind a small door in a cabinet eg under wash basin, combine toilet and shower in one compartment, place it aft.

Erik de Jong

At the moment, I am focused on finishing the structural design of the O42. Once that is done, I’ll turn my attention back to finalizing the interior layout. To clarify storage in the head, no matter where the toilet is placed, there will be a cabinet to store items like toilet paper.


Hello. Re:O42
I don’t see the need for a nav. station on a boat in this size range. Most, if not all paper charting is easier using the saloon table. I would far less inclined to purchase a boat with the only head being in the forward location. This layout is a poor compromise in my opinion.

Bill Attwood

Hi Eric and Kip
I commend your decision to change the internal layout of the A42 to include a chart table. This decision alone turns me into a potential customer. Everything else about the A40 was as near perfect as a compromise can be.
Splitting the heads and the shower is an excellent idea. The shower provides an area to hang wet oilskins at the foot of the companionway ladder, a real problem with a heads/shower up forward. The move of the heads to the mast is also a sensible move, in my opinion. This is where the movement of the boat, pitch and roll, is at a minimum. On passage, and on watch, men can (and should) use a cut-down bottle to urinate, so no bothers having to go forward to the heads. For ladies it isn´t so easy, but they do seem to be much better at waiting. Probably long years of training, as almost all public lavatories are men-friendly (no queues) rather than lady-friendly. The more earnest business of heads-use has the benefit that it can generally be planned for the time when one is not togged up for deck work. On passage the saloon provides the only really useable sea-berths, and the last thing that off-watch crew need is someone working at the saloon table. The reliance on electronic navigation, to the exclusion of traditional means, worries me. When in harbour or at anchor, the position of the heads forward should be no problem, and the increased distance from the galley area will also be a benefit. I am also absolutely certain that in bad weather one cannot navigate (please note, navigate, not pilotage) from the cockpit. In an aft cockpit, 40 foot boat, the cockpit will be regularly doused with waves. How will one comply with the legal requirement to keep a written log, when doused by waves and dripping with rain? I write not from theory here, but from much practical experience.
Yours aye,