Could you live on a Sailboat/Boat or tiny off grid home?

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by BobsArmory
I could live on a sailboat or cabin in the woods. I would require electricity though. I do enjoy watching sailing couples on youtube like this couple. Sailing LaVagabonde or Sailing Nahoa /

It does take money and/or sponsorships to make it possible.


I watch Sailing LV too. I also like Sailing Doodles, Sailing Good, bad and Ugly, Sailing Satori, Sailing Lazy Gecko.

 

[Eddie]

Rent a sailboat for a month and try it before any big commitment. Ed

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by ZZman
Lately I have been fixated on watching Youtube videos of people that sold everything and buy a sailboat and sail the world (mostly tropical). It looks amazing.

Also the simple off grid life of a tiny home looks interesting.

I think I could do either. The wife says not!

What do you guys think? Sound interesting? Think you could?

No, I dont have the capital at present. I do have a home away from people, though, and am nearly off grid, now.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by skyactiv
Originally Posted by tony1679
After doing years of homework on this subject, we've determined we absolutely could live in a tiny home (definitely NOT a sailboat), and plan to do so in the future.

Off grid is NOT an option though. Solar is a complete waste here. 3"+ hailstones don't play nice with them. I'd like to try wind, but it just seems too unreliable and costly.

That said, based on some very interesting first-hand experiments, we can't live in a typical tiny home. 4" plywood on the roof, >R100 under the roof (or spray-in)... that kind of excessive. This allows you to save money elsewhere, such as HVAC. You won't need a 3.5 ton unit in that home, unlike my current house, which is actually undersized and struggles in the peak of summer. I'm seriously considering not even using a central system. One or two "window units" should be plenty... but I'd build themninto a wall. In the window is stupid... You'll also save on electrical costs. You won't need 25 different circuits and 5000 feet of 12-2. This also saves on windows (fewer of them), roof materials (won't need a whole pallet of shingles)...you get the idea. If everything goes according to plan, or even allowing a 15% margin of error, this should be
Considering I'm currently in a 1,775 square foot house that was entirely made by a carpenter (stellar framing, but a carpenter isn't an electrician, plumber, etc. and doesn't even remotely consider efficiency), yeah, all the other departments are horrible. My windows are original to the house. 1961. The best things about this house (aside from the framing) are things I've upgraded. I've converted 98% of lights to LED to de-stress this ancient, dangerous electrical system, added [a little] extra insulation, etc. So not much. That said, my electric bill last month in the peak of summer was $92. Yeah, less than $100. And I keep my thermostat at 73°. So if done correctly, I fully expect
I'd love to live out in the middle of nowhere, but I'm realistic. I'm not getting younger, and will probably need to be somewhat close to a hospital in my later years, so location is the last remaining question. I refuse to live somewhere where I can't pee off my porch, haha. Still haven't figured it out.

Moral of the story. It can be done. It should be done by the masses. But assessing your needs and living within them isn't a strong suit for 99.999999% of the world. Look at all of the 2,500+ square foot cookie-cutter junk "smart" houses with the super wasteful vaulted ceilings being built six inches apart from each other. It's maddeningly wasteful, and people wilingly dive head first into that side of the spectrum. Why not the small, efficient side? People love the image of living rich. Why not BE rich by NOT being house poor?

My wife and I had a custom 2940 square foot home built on 5 acres. We did 6" studs, Rockwool insulation, plywood, cedar, no OSB crap, impact resistant windows... . We keep our thermostat set at 75 in the summer and the highest electric bill we've had was $106. No solar, no wind turbine, just built super efficient.

OSB>plywood.

I read up a ton on it, and it can be argued either way, but OSB seems best. Also...75? I keep mine 68 to 72. It has less sound insulation though, imo.

That said, I bought instead of built, so I got what I got. I'm 95% happy with the house, and the land is amazing. Building offers more flexibility of course.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

My parents used to help people move their boats and have a family friend (since passed) who temporarily retired to the sailing life. Open ocean sailing is not easy. .

Maintenance/ running costs and insurance on a saltwater sailboat is expensive.
You're clothes constantly feel damp.
Sailing at night can be scary because larger ships will NOT see you and you have to of course have watches.
The sun beats you up as well.

You can use a small wind generator or solar panel to help keep the batteries recharged but you'll still need to run the diesel engines to recharge them. The sailing community has been using solar/wind for decades.


Island hopping (day sails) are much more enjoyable and it's always nice to drop anchor next to a boat full of young European females

 

[RTexasF]

No way. The Hilton is camping out in my book.

 

[Andrew1972]

I'd try a tiny house to live near a decent ski area in Utah or Wyoming and ski daily for 2-4hrs and nice to work the rest in for winter only. I love skiing but also enjoy my job.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted by tony1679
After doing years of homework on this subject, we've determined we absolutely could live in a tiny home (definitely NOT a sailboat), and plan to do so in the future.

Off grid is NOT an option though. Solar is a complete waste here. 3"+ hailstones don't play nice with them. I'd like to try wind, but it just seems too unreliable and costly.

That said, based on some very interesting first-hand experiments, we can't live in a typical tiny home. 4" plywood on the roof, >R100 under the roof (or spray-in)... that kind of excessive. This allows you to save money elsewhere, such as HVAC. You won't need a 3.5 ton unit in that home, unlike my current house, which is actually undersized and struggles in the peak of summer. I'm seriously considering not even using a central system. One or two "window units" should be plenty... but I'd build themninto a wall. In the window is stupid... You'll also save on electrical costs. You won't need 25 different circuits and 5000 feet of 12-2. This also saves on windows (fewer of them), roof materials (won't need a whole pallet of shingles)...you get the idea. If everything goes according to plan, or even allowing a 15% margin of error, this should be
Considering I'm currently in a 1,775 square foot house that was entirely made by a carpenter (stellar framing, but a carpenter isn't an electrician, plumber, etc. and doesn't even remotely consider efficiency), yeah, all the other departments are horrible. My windows are original to the house. 1961. The best things about this house (aside from the framing) are things I've upgraded. I've converted 98% of lights to LED to de-stress this ancient, dangerous electrical system, added [a little] extra insulation, etc. So not much. That said, my electric bill last month in the peak of summer was $92. Yeah, less than $100. And I keep my thermostat at 73°. So if done correctly, I fully expect
I'd love to live out in the middle of nowhere, but I'm realistic. I'm not getting younger, and will probably need to be somewhat close to a hospital in my later years, so location is the last remaining question. I refuse to live somewhere where I can't pee off my porch, haha. Still haven't figured it out.

Moral of the story. It can be done. It should be done by the masses. But assessing your needs and living within them isn't a strong suit for 99.999999% of the world. Look at all of the 2,500+ square foot cookie-cutter junk "smart" houses with the super wasteful vaulted ceilings being built six inches apart from each other. It's maddeningly wasteful, and people wilingly dive head first into that side of the spectrum. Why not the small, efficient side? People love the image of living rich. Why not BE rich by NOT being house poor?

Small suggestion for AC units: instead of window units, there are the trough wall+sleeve hotel/motel type which are built a bit better in log term reliability.

Now instead of 2X6 I would go with 2 X 2x4 = 2x8. it should help with soundproofing and for sure with heat/AC retention

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by gman2304
I like the TV show "Last Alaskans". Heimo and Edna Korth have lived in the Alaskan bush for 40 years and raised a family there. I wouldn't last 24 hours in the Alaskan bush but these people thrive in it.

The winter daytime hrs are bad enough where I live, no way I could do arctic. Besides that level of cold, the daylight thing would drive me nuts.

Sailing - nope
RV or van conversion - maybe
Tiny house - maybe

Time to do it is when you're young and not old with a bad back or health issues that tether you to your Dr.

 

[jeepman3071]

No way.

Being out in the middle of nowhere is one thing. I love being outdoors and in the woods, hiking, camping, desolate cabins, etc, but as a vacation. Full-time living would just be very hard to do especially when it comes to adequate access to medical care or fixing problems with vehicles and homes.

 

[DoubleWasp]

No. There's a lot I would enjoy about any of those, but my primary passion is wrenching. I don't even know what I would do without the 24-hour AutoZone, let alone being hours from a regular one.

Tiny house? I've done as much as 10 days on my cruiser. Basically a tiny house. Could I live in something like that full time? Think not.

 

[DriveHard]

In a heartbeat!

Used to own a 30' Formula Cruiser. We would stay on it a week or more at a time...my wife would still have to peel me away at the end of the time. Such a simple life.