My four wheel drive sport utility vehicle (Nissan Pathfinder with the 3.0 Liter V6 engine) was rated by the manufacturer to tow 3,500 pounds. If the boat displaced 2,500 pounds, I could expect to add 50 pounds for a motor, 200 pounds in the bare minimum of equipment or supplies, and 750 pounds in a suitable galvanized trailer.

This length was an arbitrary number. I had looked at boats of 25 feet and decided that I would not be comfortable towing (or backing up at a launch ramp) something of more than that size; even if it could be built within my self imposed weight limit. The beam limit was selected so as to be legal for towing in most states without extra permits.

I had looked at several charts of areas where I wanted to sail. Masts that were higher than 30 feet above the water line might be a problem with bridge and other overhead clearances. Additionally, it seemed to me that boats requiring such a relatively large mast would be more difficult to launch and retrieve without a significant amount of manpower. Since I intended to mainly singlehand, ease of launch and retrieve would be a significant factor.

I argued with myself over the underwater design most of all in setting my requirements. The options were swing keel, daggerboard, centerboard, lee boards, keel with centerboard, or fixed keel. Even with the fixed keel, there would be options of a shoal full length keel, a fin keel or a wing keel. However, several of the options could be eliminated due to my proposed range of sailing conditions and pure personal preferences.

I eliminated the wing keel since I would be singlehanding most of the time. When (not if) I ran aground, a wing keel would serve as a very fine anchor. In the mud bottom of many of the areas that I intended to sail, I felt that getting out of trouble alone might be more of a  problem with the wing keel than I wanted to deal with.. For boats of the size I was considering, lee boards were also not practical. I had lee boards on my kayak and knew of their capabilities and limitations.

I eliminated the swing keel due to a pure personal preference. While this keel was clearly best for trailering and ease of launching, I really did not like the concept of 500 or more pounds of iron hanging from the bottom of a boat by a single pin and cable. If either the pin, the cable, or the cable winch were to fail; the boat could receive significant hull damage from 500 pounds of falling metal. I would then have to face the real possibility of flooding the boat and sinking.

The daggerboard was eliminated for a similar reason as the swing keel since running aground with a lowered daggerboard had too strong a possibility of doing major structural damage to the daggerboard trunk. This type of accident could flood the boat and again ruin the whole day with a sinking. Boats that advertise full floatation didn’t help with this problem. A boat full of water with a hole in it will ruin your day if it sinks or floats.

In order of preference, this left a keel/centerboard design, a full length shoal keel, and a fin keel as possibilities.

A sailboat requires a significant amount of it’s total weight to be as low as possible in order to derive significant power from the wind. The concept of water ballast would be a real benefit since the weight while on the water would be significantly higher than the weight on the trailer. I could get a bigger and probably more comfortable boat and still not exceed my self imposed trailer and boat weight limits. Since most water ballast boats were centerboard designs where the weight of the centerboard would be less than 100 pounds, this was also a desirable configuration for trailering.

I have a personal preference for the appearance of a yawl rig. Again, as a matter of personal preference, the very large single sail of a catboat rig just did not appeal as much. Since a yawl is almost impossible to find in a small boat (and might be harder to resell at a later date) , I would settle for the more traditional sloop rig.

I am not an engineer and do not claim to be able to correctly evaluate all of the construction details of any boat. This would be a pure qualitative opinion and not a quantitative assessment. I felt that I could look at several boats and determine if one appeared to be built significantly better than another. Items to be checked included the general fit and finish, the relative size of the stays and shrouds to the size of the mast, the method used to attach chain plates to the boat, the electrical arrangements, and the motor mounting provisions.

Most boats of the type that I was looking at advertise below deck sleeping accommodations for four adults. I feel that this was generally a wild exaggeration. If the boat had two quarter berths with a usable length of 6’ 4" or better, I would be satisfied since the V-Berth would be used for storage and equipment. The galley designs on boats of this type were also generally flights of fantasy by the manufacturer with sinks draining into the bilge sump where they would have to be pumped out manually. Since I would be singlehanding much of the time, my below deck requirements would remain minimal. The accommodations could be improved later as time permitted and needs dictated.

The ventilation part of the accommodation plan would be more difficult to retrofit. Therefore I decided to give preference to boats designed with opening ports and forward hatches.

I was aware that this would be the most restrictive of my requirements. There are many excellent boats out there that are no longer being produced. The designs and quality of construction were in many cases exceptional, however; their manufacturer could not survive one or another of the economic cycles during the 1980s and 1990s. I imposed this restriction to ensure the availability of spare parts and at least some level of manufacturer support. Additionally, I felt that this might contribute to ease of resale when that became necessary.

I was aware that this would be the most restrictive of my requirements. There are many excellent boats out there that are no longer being produced. The designs and quality of construction were in many cases exceptional, however; their manufacturer could not survive one or another of the economic cycles during the 1980s and 1990s. I imposed this restriction to ensure the availability of spare parts and at least some level of manufacturer support. Additionally, I felt that this might contribute to ease of resale when that became necessary.