Why aren't there more cruiseships that use sails?

[leaveitallbehind]

And why aren't there any big ones afloat at all? It seems to be a niche market, using small ships (<400 pax) with the high fares that come with small ships.

 

Would it technically be possible to create a ship the size of MS Rotterdam (1400 pax, 600 crew) that uses sails as its main method of propulsion?

 

The very last thing we want to do on our vacation is to crowd onto a giant Vegas like playground with mediocre food, long lines, crammed in and fighting for a chaise lounge with 4000 people we don't know.

 

Tried it a couple of times and would not be cruising if we hadn't found the smaller quieter sailboats that Windstar sails. And yes, we do this in 2016. It's not for everyone, but neither is mass market cruising.

 

A fair response that clearly states your cruising preference but not at all related to the question asked by the OP.

Edited October 25, 2016 by leaveitallbehind

[navybankerteacher]

Same reason they don't have rowboat cruise ships.

Because someone invented engines.

Duh.

 

Just think -- Royal Catibbean Trireme of the Seas.

[Pudgesmom]

Sorry to be picky but, it's "heel," not "lean" and Windstar's vessels are ships, not yachts.

 

 

I was quoting another poster in reply on the "lean." Probably should have used quote marks. Windstar refers to the ships as "sailing yachts." I was unaware that nomenclature was incorrect, if it is.

[Pudgesmom]

Um, probably because of the question asked by the OP:

 

I think I need more sleep! Thank you. 😀

[navybankerteacher]

I was quoting another poster in reply on the "lean." Probably should have used quote marks. Windstar refers to the ships as "sailing yachts." I was unaware that nomenclature was incorrect, if it is.

 

Yes, "yacht" is an incorrect term - to the extent it is defined as a watercraft (usually privately owned) used for cruising, racing or other NONCOMMERCIAL purposes.

 

Carrying paying passengers around on advertised scheduled itineraries has to be seen as a commercial purpose.

 

Of course Windstar wants to add glamour to their ads -- in the grand tradition of misleading information in advertising.

[Pudgesmom]

Yes, "yacht" is an incorrect term - to the extent it is defined as a watercraft (usually privately owned) used for cruising, racing or other NONCOMMERCIAL purposes.

 

Carrying paying passengers around on advertised scheduled itineraries has to be seen as a commercial purpose.

 

Of course Windstar wants to add glamour to their ads -- in the grand tradition of misleading information in advertising.

 

Not all dictionaries include "noncommercial" in their description. But hey, it feels like a yacht to me and to Oxford and Merriam so I'm sticking with that.

[FlyerTalker]

Of course Windstar wants to add glamour to their ads -- in the grand tradition of misleading information in advertising.

And some of us can remember when the "triplets" were "The Yachts of Seabourn". To say nothing of the "SeaDream Yacht Club".

[navybankerteacher]

Not all dictionaries include "noncommercial" in their description. But hey, it feels like a yacht to me and to Oxford and Merriam so I'm sticking with that.

 

Since there clearly are such things as motor yachts - and you do not feel that "noncommercial" is an essential element in thinking of a vessel as a yacht - I suppose you would not take exception to Royal Caribbean's marketing their Anthem of the Seas as a large motor yacht.

[Flatbush Flyer]

And let's not forget that a "ship" can carry a "boat" but not vice versa.

[luddite]

Just think -- Royal Catibbean Trireme of the Seas.

 

Ahhhh.... it wouldn't be too bad until they started offering water-skiing as an option. Then the crew would really be upset by pax who didn't pay the Service Charge.

[Cuervosar]

I'd sign up for this one.

 

[chengkp75]

I'd sign up for this one.

 

 

The concept was finalized in 2009, so there have been no takers. I read an article on this, and it is supposed to hold 3000 pax, but I notice only 4 lifeboats (750 person per boat?).

[Brigbound]

Royal has several sails a year! [emoji16]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[lisiamc]

Not unlike the big mistake that many mass market cruisers make in thinking that premium/luxury lines are "more expensive" (which is not always the case when you compare "net daily rate" for all that is included [e.g., airfare] vs "a la carte" [pay for bottled water?!?]), many cruisers do not consider yacht charters.

 

For example, a crewed charter for 8 people on a 60 foot sailing CAT, including food/booze/etc can bottom line at about the same per person cost as a balcony cabin on a higher end mass market cruise line.

Do some research and find a well respected worldwide charter yacht broker like Ed Hamilton Co.

 

I have had people ask me why we don't charter a yacht if we like cruising so much. I don't "settle" for cruise ships because we can't afford to charter a yacht. Cruising is our first choice, not second best. I love ships, but I don't like boats at all. Even yachts.

 

Part of why I cruise is to meet new people, and have a slightly larger group experience with lecturers, entertainment, etc. Because I don't want to meet thousands of new people, I'd rather cruise on smaller ships (350-900 is just right.) And ships can be too small. Below 100 guests would be a bit too small for me. Chartering a yacht between eight friends would be like sharing a villa on holiday. It's all too possible to discover that you've included that one couple who are really not very good at sharing, and it's much harder to get away from them if you're stuck on a yacht together. A somewhat larger ship gives you a better chance of getting away from difficult people, and a much wider choice of congenial dinner companions.

[4x4bob]

And, not mentioned as of yet:

 

Can you consider the amount of moaning and groaning that would go on when a staff member walked down the hallway knocking on doors and tell the occupants to grab their gloves, it is their turn to man the oars. Because the wind has died down.

 

Bob

[DirtyDawg]

And, not mentioned as of yet:

 

Can you consider the amount of moaning and groaning that would go on when a staff member walked down the hallway knocking on doors and tell the occupants to grab their gloves, it is their turn to man the oars. Because the wind has died down.

 

Bob

 

Groan?

 

Heck they would be lined up to pay $50 to get into the new rowing class offered by the fitness centre. ;)

Edited October 26, 2016 by DirtyDawg
$25 what was I thinking!

[SteveH2508]

And, not mentioned as of yet:

 

Can you consider the amount of moaning and groaning that would go on when a staff member walked down the hallway knocking on doors and tell the occupants to grab their gloves, it is their turn to man the oars. Because the wind has died down.

 

Bob

 

I am trying to visualise a way to utilise the hot air from the complaints at Guest Services to power this ship...:rolleyes:

[Magnum60]

Check out the Vasa ship in Stockholm!

 

Here was a sailing ship with a very simple itinerary. Leave port, sail past the royal family and sink (she rolled over in a gust of wind for several reasons). Moral to the story of the Vasa is to never go for a ride on a ship that was built by committee. If in Stockholm the Vasa museum is a must see. 'Google' it for a look see in your free time.

[Sequim88]

I may be off base but my recollection is that sailing vessels require a specific type of keel - something like an airplane wing that helps stabilize the ship and direct it when wind is from the side. I'm guessing that the size of this has to be proportional to the vessel and sail sizes so a very large ship could require a huge/deep keel unsuitable for most ports. At the very least requiring tendering everywhere and often a great distance from shore in deep water.

 

Though perhaps a keelless twin hull catamaran style design with a bridged decking between would be stable enough to support at least some sort of wind-assist sails to supplement conventional motor propulsion. Put some sails on MV China Star (former Radisson Diamond) maybe?

[chengkp75]

I may be off base but my recollection is that sailing vessels require a specific type of keel - something like an airplane wing that helps stabilize the ship and direct it when wind is from the side. I'm guessing that the size of this has to be proportional to the vessel and sail sizes so a very large ship could require a huge/deep keel unsuitable for most ports. At the very least requiring tendering everywhere and often a great distance from shore in deep water.

 

Though perhaps a keelless twin hull catamaran style design with a bridged decking between would be stable enough to support at least some sort of wind-assist sails to supplement conventional motor propulsion. Put some sails on MV China Star (former Radisson Diamond) maybe?

 

That kind of skeg keel is needed by boats with high sail area to displacement ratios, and to sail closer into the wind direction. Large sailing vessels of old were round bottomed with only a small keel running the length of the hull. These ships used the weight of the cargo in their holds or the guns on their decks to counterbalance the tipping force of the sails, and because they were square rigged, they could not sail as close to the wind as your Marconi rigged skeg keeled yachts.

[chengkp75]

Here was a sailing ship with a very simple itinerary. Leave port, sail past the royal family and sink (she rolled over in a gust of wind for several reasons). Moral to the story of the Vasa is to never go for a ride on a ship that was built by committee. If in Stockholm the Vasa museum is a must see. 'Google' it for a look see in your free time.

 

The Vasa's problems were not caused by committee, but by reversals and changes ordered by the King. In fairness, no one at that time knew how to calculate the center of gravity or center of buoyancy of a ship, or the mathematical relationship between them that creates ship's stability. Many ships before and after the Vasa capsized when they shouldn't have. Most ships' Masters would learn their ship's stability by trial and error, loading and unloading, and moving cargo forward, aft, and port to starboard.

[Magnum60]

All very true but there were so many 'change orders' during the Vasa's construction that she hardly had a chance. I believe there was also a requested extra deck of cannon added during her build which didn't do much for stability. That's what prompted me to use the catch phrase 'built by committee'. The ship builders were [to my understanding] against the extra deck of cannon for fear of compromising the ships stability. The 'want' lists of the higher ups, including the King, seems to have over ruled the engineering expertise of the Vasa's builders and put the brand new Vasa on the bottom for almost 400 years.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Magnum60