In the last interior arrangement reveal article we covered the galley, head, and storage areas aft. Now let's move forward into the salon and forward cabin.
Adventure 40 Reveal—Salon and Forward Cabin
by John HarriesReading Time: 12 minutes
Previous: Adventure 40 Reveal—Galley, Head, and Aft Storage
- Adventure 40, An Overview
- Adventure 40—Reliability And Quality
- Twenty Adventure 40 Core Principles
- A Model T Offshore Voyaging Boat
- Adventure 40 FAQ—The Boat
- Boat Size and Price are About Displacement and Righting Moment
- Adventure 40—Introduction to the Specification
- Adventure 40 Dimensions and Hull
- Adventure 40 Rudder and Steering Gear
- Adventure 40 Keel—Draft and Shape
- Adventure 40 Keel—Strength and Grounding Resistance
- Adventure 40 Rig
- Adventure 40—Engine and Drive Train
- Adventure 40—Interior Arrangement Specification
- Adventure 40 First Funding Round
- FAQ—Me and The Adventure 40
- Unbundling The Adventure 40
- Setting The Adventure 40 Free
- The Return of The Adventure 40
- Designer Chosen For The Adventure 40
- Adventure 40 Swag Now Available
- Adventure 40 June 2021 Progress Report
- Adventure 40 September 2021 Report
- Adventure 40 Reveal—Hull, Cockpit, and Rig
- Adventure 40 Reveal—On Deck
- Adventure 40 Reveal—Galley, Head, and Aft Storage
- Adventure 40 Reveal—Salon and Forward Cabin
Looking good! Definitely agree with eliminating the big window into the forward berth from the salon. I am torn on the desk in the forward berth though: on one hand, you are correct in that it may not be very comfortable, but on the other, if someone is working remotely from the boat, it is not a bad thing to have a separate office area for Zoom calls and the like. The other changes you’ve proposed do seem to clean up the design a bit, and I like them.
I’m conflicted on that one too. One thought is that sitting under the dodger would make a good place to call from, or even work with a laptop, and closing the companionway would provide more privacy than being forward.
I must say that so far I don’t agree with John’s proposed change regarding salon sole heights. The main reason is storage volume: taking account of the pluses and minuses, the change would delete approx. 380 liters (13-14 cubic feet) of storage. And location is important too, as we need storage around the mast, to fill up with heavy things as we’re filling the aft compartments (with, ideally, slightly less heavy stuff).
Other drawbacks, although smaller, would be not having a place to sit close to the companionway where to put on your boots etc., reduced conviviality between the salon and galley (very noticeable aboard an RM1200, for instance, although arguably its step is higher), creating a more easily-forgotten half-step, and the tall guys thing. On tall people, also note that the current arrangement allows for a very long starboard sea berth.
On the other hand, there’s just not much reason to use the forward part of the starboard settee for sitting as one would on a chair, which can be done anywhere else. This place, when not used as the primary sea berth, is rather for lounging with your legs on the settee or on the unfolded stool.
Hi Maxime, Some good points, but I can’t see why the change would result in that much storage volume loss. Are you talking about storage in the bilge? If so, some of the loss nets out by raising the sole that was lower under in the walk way and the forward cabin. Also, in a boat this shallow, storage in the bilge is not a lot of use because anything put there must be impervious to bilge water, so I think all we need is room for plumbing runs, which I think we will have. We already have a huge amount of storage when compared to any 16,000 lbs boat. So, yes, I get the loss of volume under the settees, but given the space in the utility cabins I don’t think that’s critical. As I measure it, because the sole comes up 3″ we are only losing ~3″ of height under each settee Sure we might have to make the water tanks a little longer to get the volume, but I think that’s worth it, and the batteries are already under a settee area so they will just come up a bit further into locker, As to seat for putting on foul wether gear, that’s a good point, but I don’t think people are going to use that the end of the settee because it will have nice cushions. The dog house makes a far better place for that activity where wet stuff won’t matter, one of the great details of the design. On the M&R we didn’t like anyone coming forward of the galley in foul weather gear, which worked well, and on this boat we have an aft head so even better. As to conviviality, the cook already has straight and unencumbered sight and sound lines to those sitting in the salon. We were set up this way in the M&R 56 and the cook was always part of the party. And let’s not forget how compelling the benefits of moving the cabinet are for the bar, serving space, cutlery and flat ware, and storage for the on watch. To me having that cabinet up forward just does not work, particularly since the door to the forward cabin will need to be closed for access every time, very awkward. That then leaves weight and balance where I totaly get your concern, but I think we can fix that. First the water tanks will be a bit longer, so extending further forward and second Eric’s excellent recent post is telling me we will probably need to up the batteries about 25% from designed. The two put together should solve most of it. And sorry, I just can’t see the lounging idea on the high settee. It has a back, people will want to sit in it facing those on the other side of the table and dangling legs just does not work. And if it’s lower they can still lounge so it becomes duel purpose. And I really… Read more »
Hi John, on the volume calculation, I counted your proposed change as taking the settees 11cms down, as the current step is 18cms high and you wrote +7cms relative to the lower level. Then I substracted both the additional space under the raised floor, and also the additional space under the countertop if it ends up being higher – this last one was just me being conservative, in fact the countertop can be made higher at its original spot too (when we drew it we were even tempted to extend it up to the deck…). Yes we already have a huge amount of storage for the size of the boat, but it’s a relatively small boat for its mission, so all in all we don’t have that much storage for the mission, and every addition makes the boat more relevant! And on longitudinal weight distribution, it’s not only about getting the right balance once the boat is loaded: our aim is to get the right balance both in light mode (coastal cruising with no plans to leave very soon) and when fully loaded (start of a liveaboard season – by the way these will be two slightly different boats, with a huge strongpoint in light winds for the first and in steep waves for the second). So the center of mass of the added and stored items does matter – nerdy remark: it should be aft of the center of mass of the boat, as when the boat sinks in, the additionnal slice of underwater hull volume is not just over the initial volume. If this sounds far-fetched and more complicated than real life, I must underline that, because of the specifics of the mission and sandwich composite being so light, the ratio of load capacity over lightweight will be exceptionnaly high, meaning that where we put the storage does matter a lot. Then of course users can and should pay attention to how they affect the balance of weights, and can always offset things by putting a lot of weight under the bed – but that’s not practical to live with and would go against weight centering. Also, I don’t see such a problem with undersole storage: with this kind of construction, the bottom can easily be divided in boxes where it’s most often a matter of cleaning the dust. So the only constraint is to not use these spaces for items that cannot take one accidental flooding – there’s so much in this category, from canned food to bottles of everything! Before I go to ergonomics etc., maybe one thing I would like to underline: the section of the boat where the salon is is wider than usual (and wider than it looks in the picture on top of the article, which is slightly shrinked transversally), because the cabin is longer than usual and placed behind a bulkhead that itself is more aft than is usual. Not to the point that a dinette arrangement would work (we tried… Read more »
Well argued, and I certainly agree that weight distribution must come first, light ship, or fully loaded. Bottom line on all of this while I still think the settee as drawn and the position of the step are mistakes that will haunt us, these are not that important in the greater scope of things, so I’m not going to break my heart, and/or cause discord, by continuing to argue with the guy who makes the final decision.
However, one thing is missing in the debate so far: the trade offs between having the cabinet forward, of moving it aft.
To me based on three decades of living on a boats, the benefits of moving it aft (see above article) are so compelling that it’s very hard to argue against, and I think the weight issues of such a change are easily managed with the added battery we need anyway, without moving the weights too far from the centre of pitch. After all what difference does it make to pitching moment if the cabinet moves back and other weights move forward to compensate, without going forward of the bulkhead. (I totally agree on not putting heavy weights under the forward bunk.) People will also store stuff under the settee where the cabinet was, which will compensate when loaded.
I do agree that adding more cabinet storage and countertop space just forward of the heads is attractive. By the way at some point we wondered whether the electrical panel goes here, which it probably shouldn’t for space and ease of future changes reasons – the small cabinet over the settee along the sidewall is a remain of that moment.
In retrospect we were probably too rational in moving the sea berth as far aft as possible, as we wanted to reduce the length of the “too high settee” section. As I perceive it now, it would be better to distribute the available cabinet volume between the two ends of the sea berth, which also spreads the countertop surfaces throughout the interior. This would make for about 40cms of storage width – and the countertop can be made a bit wider if we accept some (moderate) overlap over the sleeper’s feet.
Of course these are too minor changes to substantially affect the balance of masses.
That sounds like a good compromise, although if it were me, I think I would move the whole cabinet forward, but that’s just me and not vital.
As to the panel, I mused about that in the last reveal, but on balance I think I like it best aft in the utility bay, for the reasons you state.
Hi again Maxime,
Another thought on this cabinet. One nice advantage of splitting the cabinet in two, as you suggest, is that someone who wants a reflex heater could remove one of the cabinets and end up with a great place for one. Given that it might be worth checking with Reflex on clearances and making sure that one or the other is just big enough to facilitate that.
yes totally, this was part of the rationale for the cabinet being forward – although as you wrote elsewhere a Reflex might be sort of “overkill” for our size of boat. Now by reducing the forward part of the cabinet to just the size needed for a Reflex, the transformation will become even easier.
Yes, I would not add a Reflex to the A40 given that a small Taylor type would be plenty, but on the other hand, as you know, it’s the A40 way to accommodate as many owner wants as we can, as long as that can be done without compromising the core requirements and this seems a good, and pretty much cost free way to do that.
I know that you are not considering a Reflex, but just a note about Reflex stove /aka heater for those who might be interested. When in the Netherlands, I worked with someone with a lot of experience with their stoves and shoe-horned one into a space that I thought too small. I put up a metal shield on one wall and was prepared to cut back a nearby table edge. The metal shield never gets more that warm and I have not needed to cut back the table. This on a 40-foot boat.
I have many thousands of hours using this quiet efficient heat.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy
Foot overlap isn’t unusual. Nothing wrong with trotter boxes in a sea berth.
Good point, that’s what we did on on our Ovni and it worked perfectly. Doubled as an extra locker when my feet weren’t in it!
Very interesting to follow the development of the project.
The part of the discussion of the saloon sole seems to me to be somewhat contradictory… John proposes to trade the comfort of standing to comfort of sitting (I am tall and prejudiced against such a trade off). As far as I remember the basic principles such arguments cannot be decisive. On the other hand, the location of the step is indeed important, I agree completely, and to keep it the way it is now some holds are due.
I am very much in favour of a specialised desk. I’d trade the saloon size for that, if it were possible, big tables are only needed for entertainment. I shall remind John of his own arguments (which I support completely), that the desk was not only to work on our laptops, but more to be the ‘boat’s office’ where all the boats systems are brought together, the central boats computer (if any) located, etc. etc.
And thanks again for your work!
You are right, contradictory. Boat design is always about contradictions since with limited space we can’t have it all. Another, and perhaps better word, is compromises.
As to the desk I hear you, but again we must look at the compromises. As far as I can see, to get a decent desk with a chair we would have to move the bulkhead aft by at least 50 cm, and probably more, which would make the salon very cramped, and the settees too short to sleep on, which is unacceptable, since that’s the best place to sleep at sea, and the only place for occasional guests. (The leg space and curve of the hull looks to me to be the problem.)
So the compromise is a cramped desk that won’t be very comfortable, but will work, or no desk.
On that compromise, I don’t have strong feelings either way, although on balance come down on the side of deleting the desk.
There is no third choice other than making the boat bigger and more expensive, or maybe move the chain locker forward, which would, I think be a mistake that violates A40 core principles (performance comes first).
I do agree that if Maxime decides my overall salon idea is not good (this is 100% his call and I can certainly see his side of this) at the very least the step should be moved aft to the transition between galley and salon.
Hi John and Maxime
When we had our Ovni 435 built we planned the interior to accommodate living aboard and working from wherever the anchor was down. This included a proper chart table, the saloon table and a nicely crafted ‘desk’ in the forward cabin that used the head of the bed as seating. Both of us also used the cockpit table at times, too.
The overall result? The desk never got used, as it simply wasn’t big or practical enough. Looking at the current design, I’m afraid I suspect the same might occur here.
However, given the lack of a chart table (going the way of the Dodo everywhere, now) some alternative arrangement or enhancement would be a must I my view.
Good to gave that real world data point, thank you!
I think, given that the boat is about two thirds the size of your Ovni 435 the only option, other than a poky desk, is to use the salon table as I postulated in the article.
And of course, assuming the seats are comfortable enough, and I’m campaigning for them to be very ergonomic and comfortable, under the dogger might be a quite nice place to work with a laptop.
One could even have a roll down curtain at the aft end to enhance privacy, as Dick Stevenson advocates for.
The only other option is back to a chart table, but that will cost us the aft head and shower, and we have debated that for years and come down in favour of the aft head every time. A chart table would also screw up access to the equipment bay.
And finally, a below deck chart table would be duplication since we have a very nice navigation area with tables and space for navigating under the dodger.
many thanks for the feedback!
I suspect we’ve been too honest in the model: there’s a trick well known by architects, which is to draw smaller-than-real beds on the plan of an appartment/house, to make it appear bigger. Here we (unvoluntarilly) did the exact opposite, as the screen in the model is 31inch in diagonal, which is just gigantic and makes the place look small in the pictures (plus probably the effect of focal length).
In fact it is not small at all : when we placed the office I measured the place I fill, legs included, when working on a computer with an independant screen and keyboard on a large table where nothing obstructs me, and it does fit. Of course this deserves to be checked going forward. But hey, the desk is even as large if not larger than the dining table!
Also, sure the desk won’t be useful to everyone. However, working outside (the dodger, while well-protected, is still outside) is not for everyday or every task, so when we have two people needing to work on tables on two different things, since in our case we have no interior chart table, I see no solution, just as you say Colin, but to have a work station in the cabin. The takeaway may be that we should not be shy in taking space for the office, and at the same time make sure the place can be turned into storage for those who don’t need it, in a way that they don’t have to destroy everything and it can become an office again in the next lives of the boat.
I totally support your view. Work station is really needed. Although, in my humble opinion it is of much lesser use if there is no comfortable ergonomic back rest for a person working there.
If a good back were impossible, then, well, scrapping it altogether might be bot that bad….
thank you for the input! Initially I saw the desk chair as belonging to the “owner’s addition” category, as each one will have different needs. That said, sure it’s not that easy to source and install, so maybe a standard office chair with backrest should be provided. And the same may hold for the mobile seating at the salon’s table.
Putting propper backs on both those stools, if possible, would go a long way to alleviating my concerns.
Hi Maxime (and John) for the sensible points made. For me, I’d want a working desk of some kind and given your explanation of the 31″ screen it’s obviously a bigger space than I thought. Maybe some form of sliding pole mount (like a saloon table mount) could be an extra, that could provide a mounting for a backrest?
The saloon table is obviously viable, too.
All in all this is all really coming together well – quite some achievement. Chapeau!
That’s good to hear. To me the key issue will be whether or not there will be a comfortable area for the legs so we can sit without twisting the lower body. Even a small amount of twist gets very uncomfortable very quickly. The other issue to think about is if we could incorporate a back into the pull out stool. This would not preclude the stool being pushed out of the way (I think) but it will make a huge difference to the usability of the area.
As to working outside under the dodger, I agree, but let’s not forget that working at the salon table will be more comfortable than either, and is perfectly acceptable. Phyllis did that for years on our M&R 56 and we desk-worked far more hours than most voyagers will.
So, on balance, even though the desk was initially my idea I think a well designed storage area with a small seat (shoe storage under) will have more utility to most owners. So I would default to that although I do like your idea of making it removable for owners who want to change.
In fact all the lockers and berths and furnishings should be easily removable with just a screw driver. I’m watching a big repair on an Ovni at the moment and probably half the labour hours are going into trying to get the cabinetry apart (glued with 5200!) and then repairing the damage from disassembly.
I totally agree on the twist thing. In fact this is how I checked that the full working station is possible here.
After more thought, how we use this space isn’t such an “all-office or all-storage” thing. As Robert points out below, even after placing the ergonomics of an excellent office, there will be volume left, both under and over the table, for some storage. And this storage cabinetry can be where you start from for mounting even more additionnal storage volumes, filling the office space, if you want to.
And thank you for the screwdriver criterion – yes indeed!
Sounds good. In that case, as as long as we can have a chair with a back, I’m back to all in on the desk.
And good to hear that your are in agreement on screwdriver assembly. Not only is this good for maintenance I think it will be a great sales tool since if someone desperately wants to change something, it will be relatively easy: “I won’t buy the boat with that desk there.” “No worries, you can remove it in less than a half hour, and the remaining glassed in attachment points will make it easy to build whatever you would like in its place”. Totally in keeping with A40 core principles.
Good point about working at the cockpit table, I had not thought of that one, and it would be very pleasant on a fine day.
in the regard to the desk, the question remains, where will you put all the boat’s system in your design? I not in favour of this particular desk as such, but of a purpose built working space in general which accommodates the boat’s systems, is used for in-marina planning AND is comfortable to work on our laptops. I do find usual chart tables totaly redundant and uncomfortable, but having said so I do believe that such a space, differently organised of course, is a must.
Working from the saloon requires quite a number of alterations (as you point our yourself) and does not solve the boat’s system location problem.
If you mean navigation systems, they are all in the dog house with plenty of room, so not a problem. We were set up this way on our M&R 56 for 30 years after going to a lot of trouble and expense to move everything up from the chart table, and it worked great.
Sure, I guess you could argue that it’s nice to have duplicates down below for planning, but this is a 16,000 lbs boat, so we can’t have “nice to have” we must concentrate on required: https://www.morganscloud.com/2013/02/02/is-it-a-need-or-a-want/
All that said, I’m not dogmatic about the desk, after all it was my idea in the first place, but I totally agree with Stein and Colin: if you can’t do something right, delete it and substitute something we can do right.
Also, if the desk is kept, and it seems like Maxime is fixed on this, then I still could not see the cost/benefit trade off of adding nav and coms stuff up there since it will be untenable, due to motion, when at sea and planning in harbour is not enough of a reason to justify the expense and complications, in my experience.
I agree entirely @John. While I don’t have nearly your number of sea miles/years, I would prefer to have no desk and more storage.
I’m not clear on the opening direction of the fwd cabin door. The 3D visual in three views shows the door opening into the fwd cabin. The one plan drawing shows it opening into the salon. My guess is the three 3D views are correct and the one plan drawing is incorrect. If opening into the fwd cabin, this would eliminate one of John’s concerns with the interference of the door and access to the storage locker.
Good point. The plan I have shows it opening into the salon, but there have been many changes so I could have that wrong. Maxime?
Hi Rick and John,
yes, in fact originally we didn’t intend this very plan as the communication support, so it’s not as updated as the 3D model. Attached is a vertical view of the 3D model, with, as you noticed, the door opening towards the cabin.
Anyway, there’s a trap with these 3D views: they look nice and so like a finished work. But let’s recall that this is the preliminary design model, meant to find the general solutions, which implies placing the volumes and weights, and to assess how well these solutions work. When we’ll enter the detailed phase, we’ll not add elements to this 3D model, but start building a new one (!), with the details of all the thicknesses etc. Of course things like door opening directions may change if it turns out to be appropriate. And things more important than that, or than the specifics of how a storage is accessed, are not defined yet (but will be before we enter the detailed design phase): the first of them that comes to my mind is how specifically the inside surfaces of the hull and deck will be treated.
on this plan the working station looks really big! Go for it! 🙂
I agree it looks big, but desk top space is not the issue here, it’s seating ergonomics, and that is affected by hull curve, so looking at a plan does not tell us whether of not this is practical. As Colin points out, if it’s not comfortable to use, no one will, and it becomes a waste of space, which we can’t afford on a boat this small.
On my current boat I have a small navigation table, which serves as great place for boat computer, papers and while at sea, a place to sit down if being slightly wet to relax. On anchor it serves me well as office space and doing zoom calls.
The door to front cabin I have as pocket door, that is sliding along a bulkhead. If it’s only me and my wife on boat, we just always keep it open. It improves airflow. Having it sliding greatly improves comfort as it is bot in a good way.
Yes, I thought about a pocket door too, but there are two problems with that.
A curtain is fine. And it saves cost & weight
The renderings show a great/inviting looking space. Handholds will be important. I do not know what the reasons are for the designed bilge space but perhaps there is another approach to the layout. What if the settee were reversed with the back of the L being against the galley? Perhaps then the settee platform can be removed and the 6-3 salon headroom can be maintained. The bilge space under the seats could remain high and not impact normal seating. The forward bulkhead would then have free wall space with or without the peekaboo window. While not a fan of compression posts in the open space (I have one) it does have the benefit of enabling sliding/adjustable table that can swing, lift up, or even slide down to enable a double berth fill. As John suggests, the starboard settee could be aligned with the port L and be fully functional with the cabin door swinging into the fore cabin and the salon step located in a more natural place. As suggested, the starboard area adjacent to the galley could then be turned into storage space and/or even a stand up nav table with radio/instruments located outboard. It could also be the serving bar at anchor. Given that work space, and the salon table, I also agree that the workspace in the forward cabin could be removed and replaced with a hanging or shelf locker maybe even incorporating a small sitting bench and shoe bin. This would give more available floor space and enable the inward swinging cabin door, even if the berth needs to be shifted up/aft a few inches in order to accommodate a regular sized queen bed. No doubt lots of “input” yet to be sorted through but I think this is really starting to come together! Kudos to everyone involved.
That’s an interesting idea to flip the salon seating around, but it does have a problem that you would not be aware of:
The batteries are under the seat in the middle of the boat forward of the mast, and they can’t be moved aft for weight and balance reasons.
thank you for the kind words!
On salon layout, I’m not sure I understand you: if you want to maintain 190cms of headroom to the cabin door and have no platform under the settees, then the settees end up much lower (by 18cms) than they currently are, and you lose even more good storage volume than I calculated for John above. But again I may be missing your point.
Maxime, your design continues to impress! I appreciate the reasoning behind John’s suggested changes to the salon. The question of handholds is important, and I think the salon cabinet would be more useful aft, opposite the galley: a natural location for frequently used items like watch-standers’ kit, a few tools, and a bottle of rum! However, I could live with either layout. A few questions/comments:
Keep up the great work, and thank you!!
The boat will come with lead acid batteries. We just can’t afford to add lithium, at least if done right, and many buyers won’t need or want to pay for them anyway.
Also lithium would get Maxime into a lot of support issues.
That said, I think we will be able to design the system, and battery containment so that owners who wish to can upgrade to lithium comparatively easily. This is in keeping with A40 core principles: https://www.morganscloud.com/2014/08/31/twenty-adventure-40-core-principles/
Hi Colin F.,
thank you for the kind words and for the input!
On the cabin hatches, yes there is an ISO standard with minimum dimensions to consider them as emergency exits, and in fact we’re currently one size over this minimum. See the image below for how they’re placed relative to the bed – the idea is that you can both manipulate them while standing, and get in and out through them. So there’s no need to move them forward or aft! – once again, we’ve made sure the various spaces are wide, which we can forget when looking at the pictures, because the pieces of equipment (here the hatches) are big too!
Hi John and Maxime,
I’m not surprised that good work and good thinking is ongoing!
I can’t have a decently qualified opinion on the salon floor discussion. You guys have a way better feel for the details than I have now. Anyway, I do think both views presented have enough merit, which means something should change.
“What isn’t worth doing well, isn’t worth doing at all!” 🙂 In this case, if the settee is too high from the floor for comfortable sitting, as far as I see, that leaves two options only:
1. Make it comfortable (floor up or settee down).
2. If not, it’s no settee, it just looks like one. Delete it and use the space for something else.
Solution 2 sounds dramatic, but it could be the right choice. If the settee is even just slightly uncomfortable, we’ll always pick another spot. It won’t be used and it’s just a waste of space.
For a boat made for two people, having a fixed settee there seems excessive anyway. Even with two extra guests for dinner, the L shape dinette is totally sufficient. I know it’s standard to be able to sit around the whole table, but if needed, a fold down solution would be plenty.
A sea berth needs to be in the area, but could also be a fold down solution. Part of the area could be used for a chart table/work station, perhaps also partially fold down? I’d probably not want the latter, but I’m not sure. The rest for drawers/storage.
About the work table in the cabin, in my mind that goes the same way. I’f it’s not worth doing well, delete it. I’m no friend of below deck nav stations etc, so I think it’s useless even if its bigger and more functional than possible here. For that type of work, I’d prefer either the salon table or under the dodger any day of the week. Having yet another option doesn’t belong on this size boat.
It’s a small boat. If it gets too much stuff inside, it becomes a cramped boat. Boats are great at showing us that “less is more”, quite literally.
totally with you that there’s no need for a long settee on starboard! That said, it’s a sea berth, and we do want two perfect sea berths in the main area, which with the one in the port-aft storage makes three, allowing for crossings with up to 4 people aboard, and also some flexibility and choice when less than 4 aboard.
Your idea of a fold-down sea berth is intriguing. Indeed we could raise the current “settee” to high cabinet height, and have the sea berth fold down, in two or three parts, in the passageway (and change the widths to re-balance the whole thing). The sea berth would also serve as seating at the table. However this would imply totally changing the galley setup: open the place where the current sinks are, in order to allow access to the other sea berth, put the sinks on an island, provide galley space on starboard too as in John’s idea. I’m not sure that the huge storage would be super accessible, with the folded-up berth in the way. All this would also close access to the cabin as soon as the sea berth is in place, which is a true drawback, especially at port if having guests sleep aboard…
Also, we can have a few moving parts, but should not multiply them all around the accomodation!
That’s my way of thinking too: do it really right, or don’t do it, and substitute something you really can do right. This guides all my thinking around boats, and life.
Hi John and Maxime,
I would like to take a closer look at the suggestion that the mid-saloon step-down is not intuitive, and occupants will therefore be at greater risk of trip/injury. Our sailboat is also a raised salon. What we’ve found is, it’s not the position of the step relative to a natural room division that is the main “cue” for the occupant, but the fact that the cabin-top line drops down at the same location as the step, thereby giving a very hard “cue” (at eye level no less!) that you need to duck slightly and step down when moving forward. This applies to the Adventure 40. You can see it readily when looking at the lateral cross section. Both the step and the drop in cabin top occur mid-way between lateral frames F and G. So as long as both occur at the same point, it doesn’t matter much where they are located. Key thing is – as suggested – that a good handhold is located at that location.
The “feet dangle when seated” issue is a recurring one in the Adventure 40. But in the case of the starboard settee, at least it’s only a problem for the person seated forward. I wonder if a fixed or fold down “bar rail” or fixed ledge could be provided to support one’s feet when seated there? Either solution would not impact the “toe room” at the level of the sole.
Even if no feet dangle solution was provided for the settee’s forward occupant, I don’t see it as a deal breaker. There’s still at least 4 quite comfortable seated positions in the interior. How many people do most of us plan to have aboard on a 40-footer!
The feet dangle problem in the doghouse is more of a deal-breaker IMHO because there’s only two seated positions there and neither provide a solid footing.
As for the fwd cabin’s work area, as I mentioned in a previous comment, eliminating the pass-through (or at least reducing the height of the pass through significantly) will allow storage to be added in the volume available above the desk. So I think it’s possible to keep both the work area and add a reasonable amount of storage. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game here. In boat design it hardly ever is.
Yes, it would be awesome to have a very ergonomic seating for this desk and, yes, the current volume may not allow for that. But we have to remember this is a 40-footer. Let’s face it, smaller boats put lots of demands on their owners’ ability to put up with less-than-ideal sitting, standing and crouching positions. I’d rather have a reasonably comfortable workstation in the forward cabin – with some additional storage above – than eliminate it altogether and dedicate the space only for storage.
Keep up the great work guys.
thank you for the whole comment, and especially for the real-world feedback on the step location issue! It’s consistent with a point I make in the (too) long comment above (feb 4, 1:38pm).
Sure a fixed bar rail could be a thing under the “too high settee”, even if it has small downsides. If we want to go the careful way and have a vertical grab bar at the step, it can be the same, with a 90° turn.
(on the cockpit well and dangling feet at the watchstation, we don’t have a clean view to show yet but will very likely solve the thing by deleting the well)
And totally with you on the possible added storage in the desk area!
Great to hear that the well is likely getting deleted.
While we are thinking under hard dodger details, I am increasingly thinking of that area as a dog house that will be used in port to work, a bit, and of course for navigation planning, as well as just hanging out.
To that end, while you and Vincent are doing the final plan, I think it would be a great idea to rework the aft end of the dodger slightly to cleanly accommodate a roll down curtain to close off this area in port, and also when it’s really cold and nasty at sea. We never quite got this right, despite two rather half hearted attempts, on on M&R 56, but often wished we had.
The key to success will be making it easy to deploy and roll up and providing a way to get out into the cockpit easily when something needs doing. A taller order than it sounds, but I think worth the effort. One possible change that would help would be to redraw the sides of the dodger so the top does not extend further aft than the sides. Members Dick & Ginger Stevenson should be able to help us here, since they have long had this working well on their Valiant 42
We have a hard dodger with a soft dodger extension on our Trintella 47. The soft dodger has a full length aft transverse stainless grab rail for safety. The soft dodger has a two panel aft zip-in isinglass closure which we keep off at sea except in bad weather. This can be kept partly unzipped to make sudden exit. I tried to enclose a picture and I’ll email you a copy for posting.
Charles L Starke MD FACP
Thanks for the thoughts.
You can post the photo yourself, so we don’t do that here at AAC world headquarters since it’s already a very busy place! See comment guidelines for instructions, my guess is you had trouble because it’s too big.
Tell me here if you have further trouble so we can sort it out in public.
I tried 3 times and no comment was posted if photograph was enclosed with little button at bottom right. So I just posted the comment alone.
Charles L Starke MD FACP
Have you read the instructions? Image may not be over 1mb. Have you checked that? Others have posted images lately so I don’t think it’s busted.
I hope picture is enclosed,
Yes, if the raised settee is kept, which it looks like Maxime will do, a fold down foot bar should be included, although it will be a risk to the ankles when transiting the area.
And I agree that the there must be a vertical pole (hand hold) wherever the step down is put although I prefer to see that step at the end of the galley.
And I also agree that hanging legs in the dog house is unacceptable and must be fixed. The cleanest and best way to do that is just delete the foot well, which now that we have a sill to reduce downflood risk serves no useful purpose and has a bunch of downsides and expense.
I want to make a comment about the opening between cabins that it offers more than a open plan; it will offer more ventilation too.
I have had two boats here in my homeport of Pensacola, Florida where it is quite warm in the summer months. My first boat was a C&C 34. It was fun to sail but not very comfortable at anchor for very long. The ventilation was horrible. The forward hatch could be open but there was no relief sitting in the salon.
My second boat was a Tartan 3500 which had great ventilation with open ports and dorades. This boat also had a bi-fold levered door on the bulkhead between the forward cabin and the salon. I was amazed at the amount of ventilation coming through the levers while sitting the the salon; it was so much more comfortable that the C&C. At first I didn’t like the small door as it made the bulkhead a bit useless for putting something on it, but after feeling the airflow while at anchor it made sense to me.
Another feature of the Tartan was the door going into the forward cabin was a bi-fold door that opened into the salon. It was rarely in the way as it took up little space; and like others have mentioned it was rarely closed.
Just a couple of thoughts.
It is very exciting to see. the progress being made and all the dialog that is taking place. BTW, it was the first concept of the Adventure 40 that I first learned about AAC doing a search for the “perfect” cruising sailboat. I have been a subscriber since.
I agree on ventilation, but don’t think the “window” in the bulkhead is going to make a lot of difference, and probably not enough to justify its downsides, particularly if we move one of the hatches aft, and have two opening ports, as I suggest in the article.
I had not answered to that one, but it seems difficult to me to place a hatch just forward of the mast that is both big enough to be meaningful for ventilation and not a nuisance when tending to the halyards or to the windlass (also it is one more constraint for the structural design of the deck). But we’re currently (work in progress) looking at how to add more openings in the forward-looking side of the roof, which will help a lot, in addition to those we wanted on the sides anyway, and to the dorade boxes.
I don’t think that’s really a problem since the hatch there can be quite small and still bring in a lot of air, and one does not often stand in front of the mast when sail handling, but rather off to the side supported by the pulpits. I measure the distance between the mast and windlass at 28″ or 71cm, so we could have a hatch measuring say 32 x 45 cm and still have room forward of the mast and aft of the windlass for a foot (12 cm each). That should also leave room for structure—I like ring frames for and aft of the mast, but now I’m playing amateur engineer!
That’s the same size as the midships hatch on our J/109 which brings in a ton of air, and seems to work synergistically with the forehatch being open, as did the midships hatches on our M&R 56.
As to windlass interference, again, not a problem. We had a very large hatch just aft of the windlass on the McCurdy and Rhodes and it did not cause issues. Again, one tends to stand to the side. And, as I learned on the Outbound 46, it’s better to dispense with a foot switch and just use a remote. Our foot switch on the M&R failed at least twice in the 30 years we had it, and this gets rid of a hole in the deck too.
In fact I think it better to clear the area forward by moving one hatch aft, rather than having two forward, which will be more obstructive, not less, in my view.
Would safety rules prevent having opening windows. Good at anchor but if someone goes to sea with them open, …
No there’s nothing in the regulations to preclude opening windows in the cabin sides, and a person will only make the mistake of not closing one before going to sea once.
yes, I’m not a fan either of windlass foot switches. When I wrote working on the windlass, I was more thinking of kneeling down to unlock it and let the chain go. Now that you say it, the hatch makes me want to let a wired remote out through it – but of course it doesn’t work on a rainy windy day!
I was thinking about the wired remote. Best answer I can up with is the make one of the Dorado boxes a little bigger to add a storage compartment for it, isolated from the actual Dorade vent.
And kneeling with one knee on the hatch should not be a problem. Anyone who is worried about slipping on the hatch could add a couple of strips of non skid tape. We had them on all of our hatches on the M&R.
I do agree on both points! In fact I was also wondering about a solution for the remote involving a dorade box…
Hi John and all,
Interesting: I have had good luck with using foot press switches for the windlass. Mine are 20+ years old and have been used for many thousands of anchoring situations. I have always looked askance at those with remotes for where to store them successfully on many boats, but also to use them while directing a stream of water on the chain and anchor as it comes onto the boat. I am often leaning out a bit to direct the stream to where the chain leaves the water with one toe on the foot press: having and manipulating a remote by hand would make things more difficult.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy
Thanks for your thoughts. That said, Outbound told me that they had far fewer problems when the changed to a remote, over several boats, so I think maybe you have just had good luck with foot switches. And with a remote you could stand at the bow, or anywhere else you liked, to direct the water stream. Having done it with one foot on a switch I always yearned for a remote.
I also have had an excellent experience with foot switches. It allows me to aim the hose and water stream and wash off the chain and anchor, like Dick.
Charles L Starke MD FACP
I’m currently replacing much of my electric system. My old 12V anchor windlass was worn out, so a new 24V one is in place. I’ve used a cable connected remote on most boats and I like that, so I was planning to keep it. However I know there are also wireless true remote units, which I’ve never tried. Is that something worth looking into? Is it actually reliable? If so, is there a brand that can be recommended?
exactly same question here, I must admit! In my view, if we can have a reliable and affordable wireless remote, then all we need to do is place a fallback switch inside, on the bulkhead just under “John’s hatch”!
Hi Stein and Maxime,
I have been sceptical about wireless remotes and still am for things like throttles and steering use in confined waters, but I’m coming around for other uses where a failure would not be catastrophic. In fact I’m just installing a wireless remote for our new autopilot on the J/109 and am excited about how useful it will be when single handed next summer.
So I think this could work great for windlass use as long as there is a backup switch, just as Maxime suggests.
One thing I know for sure, anything that obviates the need to cut a 2-1/2″ hole in the foredeck (the most vulnerable area for green water) and then cover it with a rubber membrane that gets regularly stressed by a foot’ sits in the sun all day, and has an electrical switch directly under it, is a great thing in my book!
Stein, sorry I don’t know anything about good brands. Any one else have first hand experience with wireless windlass switches?
I am in the not a fan of windlass foot switches camp for the reasons stated. On our own boat we use a wired handheld from Quick as our primary and it has served us well. We also have a wireless unit wired in parallel made for an off road winch with a switch that disables it most of the time as I worry about random triggering of the windlass. This unit is really not great, primarily because there is a significant delay in actuation and also because it doesn’t have an IPX rating.
On larger vessels, I have seen several different systems which are interesting since this is really quite simple at its core, you just need 2 switches. Some boats have momentary buttons mounted on a deckhouse or something with protective shields to keep from accidental pressing. Another method is to put momentary buttons actuated by a mechanical rocker which has a piece of light line leading to somewhere you pull on it (seems overly complicated for this, it is really just copying a common trick with hydraulic valves). The other one that I have seen is some form of wireless industrial controller that looks like the type of thing you would have on a portable overhead crane. These seem to work well but I don’t have any brand or model info unfortunately.
Thanks for the fill on that. And good point on the dangers of accidental windless activation. On the McCurdy and Rhodes we had a big breaker with a red light on it in the feed to the Windlass and turned it off, except when using the windlass. In my view this should be standard practice on any boat.
Red light on that breaker is an excellent idea.
Hi John. Your mention of the “red light” begs the question “where”? The few references that you and Maxime have made to breakers seem to indicate they are in the equipment bay. Would it not be best to have the breaker panel with indicator lights, battery/system monitoring guages, and at least a radio quick to hand (or eye) in the main salon area rather than having to always duck into the stern just to see that things are ok? Traditionally such things may have been associated with the nav station, but if the starboard cabinet/counter ends up moving aft adjacent to the galley then placing this system monitoring outboard at this location could be a consideration.
I discuss this in the last article. And in an earlier rendering the panel was exactly where you suggest. There are trade offs with both locations for the switch panel and I have over time changed back and forth on which I prefer, but think I have finally settled on preferring the switch panel in the starboard utility bay. The benefits are compelling in shorter wire runs and easier installation of added gear and upgrades.
Anyway, there’s nothing about that decision that would prevent having a windless active light in the salon, or a battery monitor, or radio. By the way, I would not bother with a radio, given that there will be one in the dog house just a few steps away, but each to their own.
You remind me of one reason that my foot switches have given good service that I neglected to mention on my first posting. My foot switches have a cover which needs to be flipped over before use. This protects the rubber from UV and the windlass from accidental activation.
I guess I figured that all foot switches were designed that way which, of course, they are not.
My best, Dick Stecvenson, s/v Alchemy
Yes, that’s better, but does not change that we are drilling a large hole through the deck in a vulnerable area, which I would prefer not to do.
Actually there are 2 holes, down and up. But, if memory serves, the holes are smaller than the on-deck foot press looks allowing just the electrical connections to go through the deck and be accessible below. But no holes at all are definitely preferred.
I just went back and re-read the stream and I could have missed it, but where does one store a wired windlass control? I have seen some skippers pull then out of a forward hatch which seems problematic in a number of ways. Leaving out on the bow seems un-wise as does connecting it when needed exposing an electrical connection in what might be adverse weather.
A waterproof wireless remote seems to be the answer, but do they exist?
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy
I agree, on storage of wired windless remotes, although that would be easy to fix on a new build like the A40. As to wireless, I have not researched that, but here are a couple that claims IP67 and I’m sure there are others. https://ca.binnacle.com/Docking-and-Mooring-Windlass-Accessories/c33_34/p6582/Lewmar-3-Button-Windlass-Wireless-Remote-Kit-68000967/product_info.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiAorKfBhC0ARIsAHDzslt8c2hl6DBqQZmmPlA2ftHD-TspNkeUURBFr18nWGVRV5eE8pASZ8waAsQoEALw_wcB
It feels like there’s a long way to go with the interior. Your excellent improvements notwithstanding. And there’s also the problem of trying to please so many body shapes. Not to mention what we think we want can be vastly different to what we really need. Like head-height. It seems always to be measured vertically as if the boat is only ever in the marina. A curved sole is my preference. And looking at that settee made me reach for the Voltarin!
So I’m wondering if the interior could be vastly simplified. The forward cabin for example is unnecessarily restricted. For me, I prefer the bed to fill the space for a host of reasons. Simplifying allows lots of options for customising storage plus it reduces the initial price.
I feel applying this reasoning is a return to the ethos of the A40 design parameters.
You will note that pretty much all of my suggestions involve simplifications, so I think we are on the same page, although I might not go as far as you suggest. For example, I would not go with a curved sole.
That said, Maxime does need to make sure he comes up with a boat that will sell, and not just to two old guys, so, as always, and as you say, it’s all about balancing a lot of conflicting needs. The good news is that AAC readers are a lot better educated than most boat buyers about what really matters, so no matter how the details shake out we will end up with a way better boat than anything out there. For example, no fat stern and no stupid twin aft cabins, two things that really matter.
I think the desk in the foreword cabin doesn’t seem to work well. Stuck in the corner and supposed to have privacy but then has a window. I would prefer storage in that space.
i like the idea of the adjustable height table for typing. I would add a TV/monitor to the forward saloon bulkhead and use remote keyboard and mouse. Also, the monitor could be used as a navigation monitor while underway and visible from the saloon and galley.
in the forward cabin where the desk is… a slide out desk for use with a folding chair would be great for me to work on photo editing (aka digital dark room with no light) and provide alone space for one of the couple to write, etc. I had a slide out desk (the width for a keyboard) like this built into a small bedside table in my small apartment and worked full time off it for 2 years during COVID and it worked fine.
Amen. Laptops for office work belong at about level 5 in Dante’s Inferno; keyboard too high, screen to low; pure torture. Remote keyboard/mouse, separate monitor, and a supportive couch – the only way. And very achievable with a monitor swinging off the bulkhead, and the existing settee. And two people can watch movies (or boat maintenance how-to videos) on the same system.
None of the screenshots or renderings are showing. I’ve tried several things to get them to update. When I click on a blank image, it loads however.
The forward non-trapezoid berth is pretty awesome. Normally I tend to sleep with head aft. Getting into the berth would be easier with head forward, but isn’t sense of motion increased this way as your head is further from the center of the boat?
I am finding it difficult to get engaged with this article as all the photographic content is obscured. It is too bad, as this is an important aspect of the boat.
the photos load fine for me. Assuming you have not been singled out for blocking access to just the photos, I’d look for a problem on your end or between your device and the website.
Sorry you are having trouble with the images. Like Alex I would guess this is something in your browser or security settings, rather than a general problem, particularly since no one else has brought the problem up in a comment or by email.
It may help you to know that the text is served from our server in Montreal, Canada, but the images are served from CDN servers around the world (to improve performance) so it is possible that overly strong security settings are the problem. Are you perhaps using a computer behind a corporate or governmental fire wall and/or a proxy server?
We had a similar arrangement. It works very well in port or at anchor and we found it best head aft as our double bunk was narrower at the foot. On a bigger boat or with the cabin further aft, it matters much less. Getting in and out depends on how much floor space there is around the sides of the bunk – in our case there was none, so heads aft it was!
And I ever used that bunk at sea, even downwind – too much space to roll around and hopeless upwind…
your comment had me re-read this article https://www.morganscloud.com/2010/10/28/ovni-interior-modifications/ – it had been a long time and I wasn’t aware we were going for very similar solutions. If you happen to still have the plan of this specific arrangement, I would be interested to look at it in conjunction with the feedback you wrote! (it looks to me that the not-good-enough desk had restricted elbow room, in addition to the lack of backrest?)
my wise wife Louise has an electronic version of the each and interior layout for Pelerin, so if you send me an email address via John I’ll send it to you. It probably could have done with a little extra elbow worm, but at the expense of a large locker outboard the hull side and the mast compression post along the centreline. Yours looks better!
reading your plan (thank you and thanks to Louise!) reassures me: in our case we have 20 more centimeters in cabin length, and also more sole width, as the sole in this part of the Ovni is really low.
And it looks like you had extreme bed width, almost allowing to sleep lying athwartship!
Really impressed with the expertise going into this project, and the lessons (screw don’t glue the interior together to save on future repairs/maintenance; navigate from the doghouse; pocket doors smash their jams at sea; … so much to learn) I still wonder that the solid glass layup idea may have been let go a little too easily. The arguments towards sandwich were that it would 1. be stiffer for longer, 2. result in a lighter boat still able to carry the 2t payload, and 3. cost more but the cost would be offset by a smaller rig. I agree that sandwich is stiffer than solid, at least the traditional solid model where fibres were sprayed randomly into a mold with a chopper gun. However, I suspect a modern, engineered solid layup, with thoughtfully aligned fibres utilising modern various-axial/directional cloths etc. while perhaps still not as stiff as sandwich, would be stiff enough for long enough. It would be heavier, but I don’t think lighter is a benefit. A very experienced offshore sailor who has a very wide following wrote “going to sea in boats under about 18,000 lbs is only for the seriously tough.” Admittedly he was trying to sell his 50,000lb McCurdy & Rhodes at the time, so you might argue there was some hyperbole, but I don’t think so. Anyway, if the savings of solid over sandwich could give us a boat a couple thousand lbs heavier and a few feet longer (and let’s not forget that additional length can reduce building cost by making everything less difficult to fit in) the weight would help when the sea gets interesting, and the few extra feet would solve the issues being discussed here without blowing the budget (so long as the extra length was used to improve access to and use of what is already included rather than to include more.) My first thought on seeing the first render was “crikey it’s tall, that’s a lot of windage.” And now I’m hearing taller folks’ concerns about insufficient headroom. Headroom doesn’t worry me, I’m just 5’6”, but surely a boat as tall as this should be able to keep tall people’s heads away from the roof. Three tiers seem to be one too many, saloon & dodger are enough. If desired, the dinette could be raised to sitting-headroom height to accommodate conviviality and storage down low. As drawn, I agree that the “heat loading from all those windows” could be a problem, and if it’s hot out I’m not convinced that ventilating hot air from outside to the glass-heated interior will really help much. Personally, I don’t need to see out widely when I’m below. If it’s hot and bright out I want it cool and shady inside. If it’s cold and miserable out I want warm and cosy inside. So a traditional height cabin trunk suits me fine, especially if the relatively narrow side port-lights are at eye level and open for cross ventilation in summer, and there’s a cosy solid-fuel stove… Read more »
Yes, maybe not the boat for you. Sounds to me like you want a larger more traditional boat, which will unavoidably be more expensive.
By the way, the renderings make her look higher and fatter than she is because the focal length is wrong (way too wide). I have written about this several times and bitched at Maxime about it too. Hopefully it gets fixed before the next round of reveals.
One other comment on weight. Lighter is better in construction if going for payload. The boat is 16,000 light ship, but except racing, I can’t see anyone sailing the boat offshore at less than 18,000 lbs (just filling the tanks will get close) and she is designed to be loaded up to nearly 21,000 and still sail well. That, coupled with her hull form should make her pretty comfortable offshore, at least for her size. If she was built with no core in the hull I would guess at least 1000 lbs of that payload would be gone, so same end result, but less payload.
All that said, I would love to take every ounce I could of stuff out of her and go race her in the Newport-Bermuda race double handed class. I thing she might deal out some surprises.
I might accidentally take a couple of long showers out of the port water tank on the first day out too.
LOL! Yep, I certainly like the way my wee lake cruiser goes when empty – great fun. You make good points about the all-up weight. I just wondered if we couldn’t have cake and eat it: reduce cost by going solid, spend the savings on extra volume, while keeping the contents and payload the same. But maybe the trade-off wouldn’t quite balance out financially. Anyway, the decision’s made and, as you point out; we’re over 18,000lb at half-load.
I really need to get myself onto a boat with raised saloon or other mid-tier configuration and experience the glass-house effect on a hot day and see if my worry is justified. I know you can cool a space by ventilating warm ambient air through it, but doubt it will be effective if the space is glazed such as to create a high heat load.
Hi P D,
I’m no composite building expert, but I think I’m right in saying that solid glass is actually more expensive that cored, assuming that both are done right.
As to the tradeoffs of adding more glass, I have written at length on exactly that: https://www.morganscloud.com/2021/04/04/choosing-a-cruising-boat-shade-and-ventilation/
One thing not to forget, the answer to being too hot when cruising is simple: point the bow North (or South, if in the southern hemisphere) and go sailing. Stop when the butter goes solid. That’s what Phyllis and I always did, only we tended to screw up on the butter test and keep going.
Haha. If international cruising doesn’t come to fruition that’s exactly my plan. Cruise the NZ coast making sure to be at the bottom of the South Island in Summer, and the top of the North in winter.
yes indeed on payload. And to a much smaller extent, a fraction of the weight saved in the hull goes to the keel, very good too. Our current estimate of weight saved by having core in the hull is approx. 800-850 lbs, so close to what you say. And part of this weight saving is in the ends, so excellent for motion.
Great to see the progress on Adventure 40. An off topic thought. Just seen this interesting design: https://youtu.be/BeEx8NL6Y1M
Could she be an adventure 32 contender?
What a cool boat! Very innovative and imaginative, particularly in Europe with so much canal cruising available. A hard close reach and beat to Bermuda through the GS…not so much.
One thing, I would love to get Pete drunk and ask him why he sold the Garcia, which was supposed to be his forever boat too, and built this.
In the Yachting World print article, which I don’t have with me, Pete Goss referred to the pandemic altering their perspectives not just on sailing but life ashore. If so they they did well to design, build and commission a new build so quickly.
Great concept. Good lateral thinking.
Pete answered my questions and told me his boat was a one off and plans not intended for commercialization. I say too bad because we need more of this original thinking around IMO.
Hi John and all,
In following the A40 design discussions, there were comments on both sides of the one sink vs 2 sinks question. I have 2 sinks and they have worked well for us for the reasons put forth in earlier posts. And, I have no practice with a single sink.
I just bought a new RV and there is a square large sink. On the bottom is a stainless steel wire platform with the wires in one and two inch intervals with rubber stands keeping it an inch or so off the bottom.
So far, it checks a lot of boxes: we wash and rinse on one side of the sink and place dishes etc. on the other side for drip-drying making it function as if there were 2 sinks (but only one to keep clean).
For many boat sinks, this could be a good compromise and the ss platform would be easy to execute and inexpensive.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy
Just discovering this project now, and its very impressive seeing the amount of thought and effort put into this design. Kudos to John and Maxime for keeping up with all the feedback from everyone. I’m a huge fan of the core values of the project and am still catching up with all the previous posts & discussions.
In regards to this latest interior layout reveal, I want to share my surprise on the design choice to add the desk in the forward cabin. Certainly an interesting idea, but also seems there may be some bias towards having a dedicated work station/desk from John and other individuals that may choose to work remotely from their boats.
On such a cost and space sensitive project how did a desk/workspace make the cut? And how does a desk help to achieve the core principles? The logical justification I can see is that a desk will help support remote work, and in turn help financially support the cost of boat ownership and cruising.
As John suggested, with innovative design of the salon table and clever use of modern/compact remote work technologies, I think the Adventure 40 could easily “tick the box” for remote work capable in my eyes without the need for a dedicated desk. I’m new to the cruising world, so perhaps I have yet to realize that this is more a necessity then a top tier “want to have”.
Hope this observation from fresh eyes adds some value. I look forward to seeing the project progress.
thank you for your positive feedback!
On the desk, let’s be more specific on what, in the light of the very helpful feedback here, we’ll provide : a wide space in the cabin that allows the ergonomics of a good working station, and that, out of factory, will be arranged as such, but that will also be usable as storage, possibly after some modifications by the owner.
To me, this answers core principles number
9: a few large spaces, or more specifically here a cabin that is really big for the size of boat,
8: storage rather than berths,
7: voyaging couple – of them not all, but still many, will need one very quiet work station, or even two work stations,
12: no option – the result won’t look like their ideal in all exaact details to everyone, but will still be an excellent (or the best?) proposition to anyone who has the kind of plans the boat is made for,
slightly-extended-13: someone who wants a good desk in the cabin would have a very hard time to fit one in the available space, if we don’t plan for it in advance,
14: ease of customization,
and possibly 4 if one considers this contributes to resale value.
The details of each point may be debatable, but I hope it’s enough of them! Anyway, it doesn’t contradict what you say on the salon being enough in many cases.
Clearly we were writing at the same time, and with much the same conclusion!
It’s good to see both responses coming to similar conclusions! It sounds like this design choice is well thought out and justified with ample experience.
I agree that the desk is a trade off, in fact I explore that in the article above. And the comment stream seems to show about an even split on which is preferred. I guess, if it were me, rather than Maxime, making the final decision, I might do away with the desk. But on the other hand, Maxime has confirmed that the desk will be easy to remove, so those who wish can substitute lockers and I think that going that way would be marginally easier than removing lockers and substituting a desk.
One thing I can say is based on 30 years of living aboard and working for most of that time, having a desk was much valued and used by Phyllis and me.
So, on balance, and assuming the desk and chair can be comfortable, I think I just talked myself back into being a desk supporter, although it’s a close run thing.
I’m looking forward to some updates. I keep looking at old boats that are “ready to go” and realizing how NOT ready most of them really are. Hoping for more details soon. Any timeframe on a prototype? Any details that you can share about water and fuel tankage, etc.? Excited to see how she turns out.
We will be sharing fairly regular updates over the next few months, including the areas you ask about. As to time frame, it’s too early to say, but to be realistic we need to think in years not months. Doing this right is going to take time.
Glad to se progress in this very exciting project!
My opinion: I would much more prioritice to have a completely separate and spacious shower stall, which doubles as a perfect wet locker – than an separate desk. Maybe removing the cabinet fwd of the stbd. settee, then movind the stbd settee and fwd bulkhead og the heads forward, leaving 671mm for a separate shower in the heads?
while I see your point, this is a tradeoff with various things, mainly cabinet volume, countertop space (this one was rightly pointed by others), and having a view outside on both sides from the galley. Also, because of the size of boat, the resulting shower stall would be slightly cramped, and we already have a place where to hang wet gear: the “corridor” located between the toilet bowl and companionway steps.
Is it possible/considered to pull the bunk in the fwd cabin so much aft/up that a completely standard 150x200cm mattress can be used? Then it would be much easier and cheaper to replace the mattress in the future. Maybe the boat even can be sold without mattress and owners then are free to choose how muchs money they want to spend on one.
Moving the fwd bulkhead of the cabin aft will give an even bigger fwd locker for storage which is allways an advantage. My opinion is that this should be prioritized over an separate desk in the fwd cabin.
good point – no, the hull shape is such that we cannot fit so wide a “box”. However when drawing things, we did figure out that the mere rectangular shape may allow owners to fit their preferred mattress in the right size, but after careful cutting of the corners(!).
And on the forward bulkhead, its position is mainly dictated by the inner stay chainplate. That said, it’s not impossible that this bulkhead becomes slightly diagonal with the bed moving slightly aft, when everything is adjusted – we’ll see!
Thank you for reply. I understand that this might be difficult/impossible, and clearly the “total package” is more important. As it is now the bunk is allready much wider in the fore part than most other boats – which is very good.