200nm/day - What's it Really Take???

[Krabimike]

My wife and I, pretty green sailors on our 450S Lagoon sailed from phuket to maldives didnt get close to 200 miles a day. However on our return from Chagos to Phulet we had many 200 mile days. We sailed 2000nm all on second reef winds 20 to 25kts 135° 3 - 5 meter following seas and great weather until the last 30nm we got slauthered by squalls! Put the sails away and pushed through! Though it was a great sail we found ourselves much more fatigued, then on the way there.

[catsketcher]

I have never done a 200 mile day. I have done two coastal trips that were fast enough to remember - both were 160 miles over the chart in 16 hours. Average 10 knots. To average 10 knots on our boat means hitting 15s and even more to get the average up.

We can average 8 knots easily over 80 miles for a daysail but I usually wait for good conditions. I am also right into the sailing and put up reachers, kites and do a fair bit of trimming. When I get to the new anchorage I can stop and relax some more. Keeping up that pace at night is something we don't do. Around 10pm we slow down and slow the boat down too.

It is a rare combination of circumstances that allows the wind to blow hard enough for us to put the pedal down without a corresponding increase in the waves that make us want to rein her in. Above 8 knots daysailing is a bit rough usually. Slower at night for when I am sleepy.

[Qayaq]

200 nm days. Mmmmm in my dreams and I think that's the same dream where I've just won the Lotto, I spend a lot of time outfitting my boat to cross oceans if I did 200nm days I would only have half the time out there to enjoy it.

[TJ D]

I do have to add that my previous 3 boats were all heavy, full-keelers. Fast is WAY more fun. Even if we downsize, it will be to something like a Pogo or a Class 40 fitted out for minimalist cruising.

Faster doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive. Just lower your living standards enough!

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

IMO a boat without at least 2-3 light air sails is doomed to either drift or motor when the breeze drops into the sub 5kt range.

We did most of our cruising carrying a zero and an A2.

The zero earned its keep (storage space and cost) - a vastly useful sail.

The A2 did not. We rarely used it, and the marginal speed gain was tiny vs the zero + jib poled out (which was much easier to handle). As to why - on a double handed boat, too easy to get into a clusterf^&k at night with random squalls, too sensitive to apparent wind shifts, and a pretty big stowage package.

I should note that I am not shy about spin handling. Was bow on a boat that won the NORT, and we never ever went bare headed, always peeled with me out the pole end.

We did know one or two double handed boats that did get use from their full chutes, but all were like Heart of Gold - winners in their class at transpac, sailed with guys like Stan Honey, super skilled and super competitive. That is the real tail of the cruising fleet distribution.

As to sailing down below 5kts - it all depends on swell size/shape. In flat seas, no problem even with just plain sails. You might have to change course a bit to get the apparent wind working. However in big swell, like in the southern ocean between systems with 3m swell coming from two direction . . . it is damn hard to keep moving no matter what sails you have, and you are more likely to do rig or sail damage with all the slating/banging going on, and you probably need to charge the batteries anyway, so 4 hours of motoring to allow the next system to establish itself is usually the prudent cruising thing to do.

[Just Another Sa]

Originally Posted by fxykty

AWS varied between high teens and high twenties, depending on whether we were surfing or not. Average boat speed was 9.5, going from lows of around 8 to highs of 12-13. We were purposely depowered to limit the surges.

The post I quoted didn't mention AWS at all. Hence that doesn't explain anything.
1) With TWS as 25 knots and boatspeed at 9.5 knots and TWA of 130 degrees, AWA would be 108.934 degrees, not 70 degrees you claimed. That's a 55% or 38.934 degrees of error. AWS turns out to be 20.25 knots.

2) With TWS as 25 knots and boatspeed at 9.5 knots and AWA of 70 degrees, TWA would be 90.921 degrees, not 130 degrees you claimed. That's a 43% or 39.079 degrees of error. AWS turns out to be 26.6 knots.

3)If there would be just 10 degrees of error in both AWA (80 instead of 70) and TWA (120 instead of 130), TWS must be off by more than 10 knots to allow 9.5 knots of boatspeed being possible.

How your boat performs is not the issue, but the wrong numbers you claimed are.
All of the above examples and any combination of those require a huge error in your numbers. The difference between TWA and AWA simply can not be so large with such a low boatspeed/TWS ratio. That is a fact, not an opinion.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Faster doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive. Just lower your living standards enough!

mmmm, just so people know what you are talking about:

Length overall: 56.0
Draft: 9.6
Displacement: 21,000
Ballast: 9280
Water ballast:1600 lbs per side
Sail area: working = 1480, maximum offwind = 3094

It is an awesome boat, and I love Bieker's work.

But you do admit it is at the far end of the spectrum of 'blue water cruising boats' - super light, super deep, pretty big sail area. Not cheap to build.

If my math is right you only have 10k lbs of boat (excluding the ballast) for 56'. An outremer 51 has 20k lbs and a 59 has a lightships displacement of 28k lbs. So it is really damn light.

Good on you - very exciting boat - but it really needs to be qualified when it is introduced into a 'cruising' discussion.

[Joli]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

And 3rd, above 9 kts, on the size boats we are talking about, it usually gets bumpy and noisy and twichy - just less fun for a long haul. So, the boat often gets slowed down.

That's the real truth. Last year when transporting the boat for winter storage we anchored behind an island to avoid an upwind bash into 25 knots. During the evening the breeze clocked but seas were still on the nose. Power reaching at 12 knots into 3/4' short chop was extremely uncomfortable. Fast is not always fun and a schedule is even less fun.

[TJ D]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

mmmm, just so people know what you are talking about:

Length overall: 56.0
Draft: 9.6
Displacement: 21,000
Ballast: 9280
Water ballast:1600 lbs per side
Sail area: working = 1480, maximum offwind = 3094

It is an awesome boat, and I love Bieker's work.

But you do admit it is at the far end of the spectrum of 'blue water cruising boats' - super light, super deep, pretty big sail area. Not cheap to build.

If my math is right you only have 10k lbs of boat (excluding the ballast) for 56'. An outremer 51 has 20k lbs and a 59 has a lightships displacement of 28k lbs. So it is really damn light.

Good on you - very exciting boat - but it really needs to be qualified when it is introduced into a 'cruising' discussion.

Thanks, Evans. We really love the boat-feel incredibly lucky to own her, that's for sure.

I wouldn't have contributed had I not been asked to, we do realize that we're so far outside the norm that our performance is pretty meaningless in a cruising context.

But, what I meant by my post was that while we are not compromising on living standards here on RS, bigger day's runs can be done on something like a class 40 fitted for minimalist cruising. That was my point.
TJ

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Thanks, Evans. We really love the boat-feel incredibly lucky to own her, that's for sure.

I wouldn't have contributed had I not been asked to, we do realize that we're so far outside the norm that our performance is pretty meaningless in a cruising context.

But, what I meant by my post was that while we are not compromising on living standards here on RS, bigger day's runs can be done on something like a class 40 fitted for minimalist cruising. That was my point.
TJ

One thing I have noticed is that everyone thinks they are normal no matter what. I have to say I have never seen, less yet sailed on a boat with water ballast. On the other hand I have sailed on an F39 (have to add the facilities on that boat were far from minimalist) that could easily maintain 20+ knots in fairly common conditions in the winter in the Florida keys. I have sailed on several other fboats that easily do 15+ knots under the same conditions. In both cases we did pick our weather. In fact I always try and pick my weather. Under those conditions I plan to cover 100+NM in a 10 hour day; anchor for the night, and check the weather to plan for the next days sail; which for me is normally solo.

I have made longer passages but note that with out a good nights sleep my speed always seems to drop. Which raises the issue of what I will call reliable crew. It is not always easy to find folks capable of basically single handing a boat for 4 hours (or whatever watch you set up) grab some rest and repeat for days, or even weeks on end.

While I consider myself a decent sailor I would be lost on your boat having to deal with water ballast. I suspect a huge majority of CF posters have never had to contend with water ballast. By the same token I feel very comfortable tacking with my overlapping screecher and working up up at the same time, but would be wary of a new crew member doing the same tack.

It seems like those that do log 200 mile days have at least one common factor, the skipper and crew know their boat well and are comfortable sailing it. I would bet very few folks could do 200 mile days on a new (to them) boat no matter how well designed and outfitted the boat was.

May be the classic example is Bank Pop/Spindrift. No way I could log a 200 mile day on that boat yet it logged 907.9 NMs in 24 hours. Bottom line is a good skipper knows what it takes for them to log 200 miles a day; in great part based on the skipper's ability. Not just the skipper and boat's ability but the crew's ability as well.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Just Another Sa

The post I quoted didn't mention AWS at all. Hence that doesn't explain anything.

1) With TWS as 25 knots and boatspeed at 9.5 knots and TWA of 130 degrees, AWA would be 108.934 degrees, not 70 degrees you claimed. That's a 55% or 38.934 degrees of error. AWS turns out to be 20.25 knots.



2) With TWS as 25 knots and boatspeed at 9.5 knots and AWA of 70 degrees, TWA would be 90.921 degrees, not 130 degrees you claimed. That's a 43% or 39.079 degrees of error. AWS turns out to be 26.6 knots.



3)If there would be just 10 degrees of error in both AWA (80 instead of 70) and TWA (120 instead of 130), TWS must be off by more than 10 knots to allow 9.5 knots of boatspeed being possible.



How your boat performs is not the issue, but the wrong numbers you claimed are.

All of the above examples and any combination of those require a huge error in your numbers. The difference between TWA and AWA simply can not be so large with such a low boatspeed/TWS ratio. That is a fact, not an opinion.

You're right, my numbers were averages, especially the boat speed. Instantaneous boat speed was anywhere between 7 and 20 knots. As I go back over the log, the AWA (which was how we set the pilot) was mostly around 80 degrees as wind strength went up and down and TWA between 100 and 140 degrees depending on whether we were surfing or recovering. As the pilot couldn't keep up with the changes in AWA, that moved between 70 and 90 degrees. Thanks for the corrections.

But remember, the effects of wave action are not reflected in wind vector diagrams. Hence the missing boat speed.

Going back to the OP, what it takes to make 200 mile days, if you don't want to drive your boat very hard, is to have a faster boat that can easily make 8.3 knots average while sailing at 50-70% of hard driving potential. Or, perfect conditions.

[jdazey]

Originally Posted by fxykty

As I go back over the log, the AWA (which was how we set the pilot) was mostly around 80 degrees as wind strength went up and down and TWA between 100 and 140 degrees depending on whether we were surfing or recovering. As the pilot couldn't keep up with the changes in AWA, that moved between 70 and 90 degrees.

So Fxykty, your autopilot does not have a setting for steering to true wind angle. Do you think it would help if it did?

And thanks for your contributions to this thread.

Cheers,

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by jdazey

So Fxykty, your autopilot does not have a setting for steering to true wind angle. Do you think it would help if it did?

And thanks for your contributions to this thread.

Cheers,

It's a raymarine i70 auto pilot and does either AWA or TWA. In big waves it does better with AWA and in smoother seas it is fine with TWA. Generally on a performance cat I think AWA works better as it varies with speed and requires less trimming as speed changes. I confess to setting it to the waypoint heading when wind direction is steady. How do other multi sailors set their pilots?

[jdazey]

I think a lot of guys use AWA upwind and TWA downwind, especially in surfing conditions where the AWA changes so quickly. I'm installing my first autopilot with any wind angle ability hence the question.

Cheers,

[44'cruisingcat]

AWA unless sailing DDW goosewinged. Then TWA.

Our Simrad autopilot can be set to switch automatically at deep angles. Helps prevent accidental gybes.