cruising costs, maintenance and price of the boat (sailboats versus motorboats) [Archive]

Vega

04-29-2006, 11:20 AM

Overall costs of a boat depends on too many local and personnal parameters to make something generic. that why there are so many different boats.
.

Of course, and I love diversity. What I am proposing is to make a little analysis of these parameters in what regards cruising in a sail boat and in a motor boat: The parameters are: price of the boat, cruising costs, maintenance and resale value.

To put some order in this discussion I propose that we begin with the choice and price of a new boat. Building costs can hugely differ as well as prices of used boats, so let’s start with the price of a new boat. I believe that if there is a significant demand for a certain kind of a boat, then there will be an offer of that product on the market. If you don’t find a guy or a manufacturer in the whole world, that makes the kind of boat you want, then that kind is not suited to these discussion, because we are talking about cruising, that is what lots of boat owner’s do, and the market obviously produces the boats they want (that’s how the market works, if you are wrong about what people want, you will be out of business quickly.

The boat:
For cruising you need interior space, safety, economy on fuel costs and some autonomy.

Hmm.... Stuck out in the middle of the pond with the engine dead in the water.....

Of course, a sailboat has two engines, a motor engine and a sail engine. That contributes a lot for safety, but even the most modest 6m sport fishing boats that go to the sea carry normally also two engines (the main and an auxiliary outboard, just in case). So, I think that it is also out of question (at least for me) to have a cruising boat without two engines (and that is also the main market offer for cruising motorboats).

The two main world cruising grounds are the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. That’s where most cruisers want to cruise, so the biggest offer relates to boats that are intended to cruise on these waters. That means oceangoing boats, but not necessarily passage makers.

For the sailing boat, it looks that what sailors are buying now (and logically what the market is aiming at) are sailing boats in the 40ft area.

Let’s chose the typical sail cruising boat, from the biggest manufacturer and the boat that he produces aiming at cruising in this size, the Oceanis 393:

The boat can have 4 or 3 cabins, two heads, it is a relatively good sailing boat with a 55hp motor and it comes standard with a 476 liter water tank and a diesel tank of 138 liters with an option for more 150l.

I don’t know a lot about motorboats, so I will ask the collaboration of the Forum motorcruisers to chose, from the world market, a boat with similar characteristics to this sailing boat, in what regards interior space, water capacity and number of engines (2), a motorboat fit for cruising in comfort, in an economical sort of way, regarding fuel consumption, maintenance and initial price.

http://www.beneteau.com/$gp/ficheModele.do?code=14383&extension=001

Greenseas2

04-29-2006, 11:33 AM

Good input Vega. In the possible development of a long range motor only new design, one thing that I would like to reccommend is the placement of berths midship. I've been at sea in both Hurricane Bertha and Hurricane Lenny and the crew found that they could get adequate rest in the rather small quarter berths. In the V-berths they were tossed against the overhead and out of their berths, a rather dangerous underway situation. I realize that V-berths are a design advantage in use of the bow space, but I also believe that better and safer uses could be made of it that would permit better crew rest and accommodations in other areas. Most boats, both power and sail take up a lot of cabin room with lockers. Possibly lockers with drawer and shelves as well as hanging locker could go forward into the space currently occupied by the V-berth.

Vega

04-29-2006, 11:57 AM

Regardless of the type boat, maintenance time and costs are going to be close if you want more than a modicum of security off shore.

That’s what I want to find out. That’s a little early to take conclusions.;)

[QUOTE=Greenseas2Motors well taken care of generally don't fail, and sail well service offer long life.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the “generally”. In the summer it is not expected to have really bad weather (specially when the weather report doesn’t make reference to anything special), but last year I was caught (at night) by some weird meteorological phenomena, a Tornado, a Micro Burst or something like that, that instantaneously has ripped off my main sail (reefed on the third point).
Safety should be maximized and the “normally” is just not good enough.

A thousand weird things can happen to an engine, not normally, but they can. You can have the stuff to repair, or not.

Of course you can propose a cruising boat with only an engine, but it will lose a lot of points in safety towards a boat with two engines (sail and motor or motor and motor).:(

Vega

04-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Greenseas2

04-29-2006, 02:18 PM

Vega, Phil Bolger's Wyoming design comes fairly close. It's a flat bottom boat though and requires low power to move along at a good clip. He has a series of designs that are similar and they are spacious. At he very least, they make ideal economical inland cruisers and may be a place to start. They could be modified with a shallow V hull fore better seaworthiness. Also look at the 45 foot Mark V boat on the net.

Skippy

04-29-2006, 02:37 PM

I find it very hard to believe that sailing costs, such as maintaining a set of sails up to typical cruising standards, would cost as much as fuel and other expenses for motoring. I would very much like to see some realistic numbers for the two. To make a fair comparison, overal size, interior accomodations, and other amenities should be equal between the two cases. The motorboat will be under power at all times when underway, and in essentially all cases will have a larger and therefore less fuel-efficient motor. The sailboat will motor some of the time with a smaller engine. I would assume some sort of "average" or "typical" weather conditions and habits on the part of the sailor as to what percentage of miles are crossed under power.

In these days of rising fuel prices, another way to make the comparison might be to calculate a rough "break-even" price, where motoring is cheaper at lower fuel prices and sailing is cheaper when fuel costs more. My guess is that the break-even price would be much lower than what we have these days.

Vega

04-29-2006, 03:05 PM

Vega, Phil Bolger's Wyoming design comes fairly close. It's a flat bottom boat though and requires low power to move along at a good clip. ...may be a place to start. .

No, not even close.
That is a design. For the reasons I have stated in a previous post we need a PRODUCTION MOTORBOAT, preferably a mass production boat, to be cheaper.
The Oceanis 393 is a mass production boat and for a fair comparison (in prices) we need also a mass produced motor boat.

I am still waiting for suggestions.

Vega

04-29-2006, 03:36 PM

I would very much like to see some realistic numbers for the two. To make a fair comparison, overal size, interior accomodations, and other amenities should be equal between the two cases. .

Me to. It is why I have opened this thread.

I find it very hard to believe that sailing costs, such as maintaining a set of sails up to typical cruising standards, would cost as much as fuel and other expenses for motoring.

Remember that Willallison has said:

Fred -

It's a mistake to think that buying a sailboat will save you money. Many times I've seen the results of studies that show that a full displacement power boat is indeed less costly to buy and own.

I am hoping that Willallison will come to this discussion and bring some light over the issue.
I have to say that I have already heard about those studies (from a motorboater, of course) but I have never seen them.
I am curious too, and in need of help from Willialison and the other motorboaters, to find the production motorboat that in their opinion fits the bill and is suitable to have that comparison with the Oceanis (price, cruising costs, maintenance and resale value).

fcfc

04-29-2006, 05:22 PM

For vega

I think the approach is flawed.
You take one of the best selling sailboat, and ask what powerboat could compete against in fields where the sailboat is good.

I could ask the reverse:
take a good powerboat (say for instance antares 980, of the same builder or nimbus 320 ( http://www.swemarine.com/320coupe.html ,widely rented boat as the oceanis 393), and now ask what sailboat could compete in term of cruise speed (> 16 kts, top > 25 kts), with the same ease of handling (no more than a throttle lever to push), same kind of independance of weather (no wind or upwind not a problem), with the same shoal draft, and of course at a similar price and liveability.

Vega

04-29-2006, 08:11 PM

For vega

I think the approach is flawed.
You take one of the best selling sailboat, and ask what powerboat could compete against in fields where the sailboat is good.
.

No, it happens that it is in these fields that, as a (not rich) cruiser I am interested in. As you possible remember this thread began because I was curious about what led Willallison to saying to Fastfred, in a thread that was about cruiserboats : “Many times I've seen the results of studies that show that a full displacement power boat is indeed less costly to buy and own.”

It seems that you don’t think the same way.
It looks that to you that regarding cruising costs, maintenance, price of the boat and resale value a motorboat is no match for a sail boat?

About the boats you talk about, I will pass the Nimbus range ( way too expensive) and look at the Beneteau range of motorboats and to the Antares 980 that you suggest.

I do not find that boat fit to compare with the Oceanis. That boat is not really a cruiser, at least for me, it has two big hungry motors of 2x225hp, has 1/3 of the interior space of the sailboat and carries only 220l water. Besides the Oceanis is an oceangoing boat (Class A) and this one is not (Class B). On that line of boats (Antares) only the 13,8 has the same amount of interior space and yet, it is still not an oceangoing boat (Class B) even if it has 2x480hp and costs 3 x more than the sailboat (I have seen that there are a huge quantity of Antares 13,8, almost new, for sale, I wonder why?).

Apparently a more suitable boat for comparison (Beneteau), would be the “ 42ft Trawler ”, that looks like a cruising motorboat but, with 2x370hp in a displacement hull, you may ask what kind of trawler is that?(one more for rich sailors that like to make big bow waves). Besides it is still a non oceangoing boat, and costs also around 3x more than the sailboat.

fcfc

04-30-2006, 07:36 AM

You did not seem to understand what I said.

I just took a mainstream powerboat at its best (handling, speed, and draft :say family week end/small holidays boat for coastal cruise, where I am interested in), and asked you what sailboat could compete with it within same overall price range and liveability.

I never tried to compare the antares 980 with the oceanis 393. The fact the same builder builds boths means they do not compete in the market.

There is simply no competion from a powerboat where a sailboat is at its best. It would be a foolish marketing from the powerboat builders to try to do this.

Again, there is no competition from sailboats where powerboats are at their bests. It would be same fool marketing option from sailboat builders.

Competition sail/power only arises when you want both of worlds: say low draft, ease of handling, speed (powerboats wins) AND seaworthiness and very long range (sailboats wins)

fcfc

04-30-2006, 07:38 AM

BTW, the beneteau 42 trawler is not a displacement hull, it is a fine planning hull (like the antares 12) with trawler look alike superstructures. Much like the new grand banks heritage 44.

Greenseas2

04-30-2006, 08:54 AM

Vega, I agree with you and believe that numbers are needed. By way of design for a relatively long range single engine power boat, I would start with a more hydrodynamic sailboat type hull that can be propelled at reasonable cruising speed with modest power. If a sail was included in the design, it would be for supplemental power only. There are several good full displacement sail boat designs around. One that I had was Ted Brewers design for the Ted Herman built 32' Lazy Jack schooner and 32' Herman sloop. The boat was easily pushed to 7 knots with a 15 hp engine. It also had sufficient space for 120 gallon fuel tankage in two tanks. The range under power at 7 knots was about 900 miles, more a slightly slower speeds as the S/L of 1:1 was 5 knots.

Vega

04-30-2006, 10:48 AM

Again, there is no competition from sailboats where powerboats are at their bests. It would be same fool marketing option from sailboat builders.

Competition sail/power only arises when you want both of worlds: say low draft, ease of handling, speed (powerboats wins) AND seaworthiness and very long range (sailboats wins)

This thread is about general cruising costs, and it may seem strange to you, but I am not trying to make fun of motorboaters.

When Willallison says that in a sail boat you have maintenance costs that you don’t have in a motorboat, related with sails and the rig, he is right. Certainly in a motorboat like the ones from Beneteau, only the maintenance of those big engines would be more expensive than the sails and rig maintenance, but that it is not necessarily the case with a more dedicated cruising motorboat.

Take an example, the sails of my 36ft sailboat (150% genoa, main and asymmetric spinnaker) cost around 15 000 euros and I have spent in 4 years about 1500 euros in sail maintenance. Those sails will last probably more 3 or 4 years before being replaced. The sails are of good quality (not the cheapest ones), but there are sails in the market that can easily cost the double (not adequate for cruising in my opinion).
Then you have the rig. In maintenance I have spent about 800 euros, mainly in a professional tuning of the rig ( in a badly tuned rig the mast can break quite easily), but in some 6 or seven years I would have to change all steel cables of the rig (steel fatigue), to be on the safe side of luck, and that is not going to be inexpensive.
On the 40ft sailboat all this will cost at least 30% more.

So, if you pick a boat like the one I have posted in post nº10 of this thread, a boat with 2x89hp, that can do a consumption per mileage about the double of a sailboat on motor, things start to be interesting about cost comparison ( and the motorboat will be probably at least 50% faster).

Of course it is very important the initial price, and mass produced sail boats have a very competitive price.
I don’t know of any production motorboat that has similar characteristics of the one I am talking about, that’s why I have asked for help (from cruising motorboaters), but I don’t see any reason to be an expensive boat, except the fact that it is not mass produced. I would guess that the resale value will be a lot better than the resale value of the typical power boat.

With the present fuel prices (and future ones), probably we are going to see a lot more of these type of boats, perhaps even some mass produced, inexpensive ones.

Ps. Cruising motor cats are an alternative, and as you know, there are some mass produced French ones. The problem with cats are marina costs and often when cruising, to find a place (at any cost). There are places where they charge about120 euros a night for a cat, and having one here at the marina can cost 12 000 euros annually, and even so it is difficult to find a place. Besides they are expensive boats to produce.

Vega

04-30-2006, 12:49 PM

One that I had was Ted Brewers design for the Ted Herman built 32' Lazy Jack schooner and 32' Herman sloop. The boat was easily pushed to 7 knots with a 15 hp engine.

7 knots is practically the hull speed of that boat. It is not “easy” to push that boat to that speed with a 15hp motor. If possible, you certainly need flat water. The “easy speed” to get with the LWL of that boat would be about 5,2 knots.

It is not in flat water that you have problems with the power of your motor. I remember one time, that I could not make more than 1,5knots, full power with my 29hp motor in my light boat.

I was trying to go out of the closed bay of Fornells (Menorca). For several days I, and a lot of other cruisers have been shut inside the natural port by +30 knot winds, blowing right in the narrow passage that leads out. On the fourth day I had enough, and with 20+ wind on the nose I have decided to try to motor out of the port.
With very short period 3 to 4 meters waves on the bow and against the wind I was just able to crawl at 1, 1,5knots, and it took a looooooong time till I was able to clear that cape, turn the boat and fill my sails. Then I turned it off, and went sailing, doing more than 8 knots (very nice sailing day, big sun, nice breeze).:)

With the Lazy Jack, his weight and his 15hp motor, I would be sailing backwards in that passage.:rolleyes:

The need of a more powerful Motor has arrived to me, in several occasions, (even if mine is the most powerful available for my boat, having the standard only 19hp).:(

That’s why, next time, I want a motorsailor, but one that can sail like a sailboat.;)

safewalrus

04-30-2006, 03:34 PM

Gentlemen (and Ladies)

the main problem with the whole gist of this argument is the fact that every person has a different idea of what he wants from his boat! He thus probably has some preconceived notion of what (S)he thinks best and will alter the figures to suit! A sailboat can and does cost more than a pure powerboat can and does cost more than a sailboat can and does cost...... If you see what I mean! I personally (biased towards me see!) think that the only difference is both personnel preference and intended cruising grounds and range! Also type of boat does have its problems - the big engined go faster job - live in Portsmouth - Paris for Dinner back home (across the English Channel) for breakfast is all well and good IF YOU CAN afford the fuel! Conversely a sail cruise/race to new York is all well and good if you can afford the boat! Hope you can see what I'm driving at, to use an old English expression it's 'Horses for courses' (you choose the kind of nag that will run the distance in the time given!) Other than that I believe we could be in for a 'long night' on this....

Willallison

05-01-2006, 12:53 AM

Please forgive my tardiness in entering this debate - been too busy to get into it, and indeed still have too much to do to give it the time and consideration that it deserves:(

Before comparing any one boat with another, consider this. the construction of two vessels - one sail, the other power - of equal living area will be approximately the same (both will require about the same hp to drive them at displacement cruising speed, so engine size need not be vastly different). The sail boat, however will require the addition of mast, rigging, sail, winches etc. I recently priced a rig for a 45 footer - it was well over 50K AUD. If our hypothetical power boat uses 1L per nautical mile, at say $1 per litre, that's 50,000 n.miles you can travel for free....
Oversimplified I know, but it's a start.....

It is important in considering all of this that one compares like with like. Obviously the cost of fuelling a large planing powerboat will quickly overtake any costs incurred in operating a sailboat (though even this would be interesting to evaluate, given the number of hours the average boater is actually underway.... but that's for another occaision I think).

Unfortunately I couldn't find the articles I was referring to in my original post, so we'll just have to do the legwork ourselves. I'm out of time for now, but as soon as I get a chance I'll look up some examples and we can make some comparsions.

Guillermo

05-01-2006, 04:43 AM

...That’s why, next time, I want a motorsailor, but one that can sail like a sailboat.;)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Mychael

05-01-2006, 05:13 AM

I'm new and no great boating expert but should we not also add to the equation when comparing costs how much is either type sail or motor actually used "in motion".. I would think that the majority of sailboats actually sail.. so if for instance we were to sail for 8 hrs or were to motor for 8hrs how then would the costs compare. Salis and rigging (I'm guessing) should last for 6 yrs??. Take that as sailing 8hrs a day for 6 yrs.. What would a power boat cost in the same 8x6 equation in terms of fuel and engine life?

Mychael

Greenseas2

05-01-2006, 08:38 AM

Your input is needed to get the thread back on the track that Vega started out with.

Greenseas2

05-01-2006, 08:49 AM

I believe that you have to take both modes of propulsion in to consideration> as an example, in moving to south Florida form New Jersey I had to get my boat to it's new dock here. The wind was against us for all but one 24 hour period. Consequently we had to motor most of the trip. Even with wind in our favor,we still motored. Sails are great unless your the course to your cruising destination is mostly in to the wind. Also offshore you have to take in to consideration the doldrums. No one wants to sit for hours or days waiting for the wind to pick up so economical power comes in to play. One design flaw in both sail and motor is the power budget for electrical requirements. Many of today's boat require either a motor generator, wind generator or solar panels to keep up with the plethora of electrical equipment, both necessary and optional found in mkodern boats. This is another consideration for the design of true cruising boats.

Vega

05-01-2006, 09:33 AM

I'm new and no great boating expert but should we not also add to the equation when comparing costs how much is either type sail or motor actually used "in motion".. Mychael

Of course, you are right and I have already said something like that when replying to Willallison:

It's a mistake to think that buying a sailboat will save you money..
It all depends on how many miles you travel each year.

.. I would think that the majority of sailboats actually sail.. so if for instance we were to sail for 8 hrs or were to motor for 8hrs how then would the costs compare. Salis and rigging (I'm guessing) should last for 6 yrs??. Take that as sailing 8hrs a day for 6 yrs.. What would a power boat cost in the same 8x6 equation in terms of fuel and engine life?
Mychael

Here, I think you are oversimplifying. We are not talking about sailing, but about cruising, and while cruising a sailboat motors a lot.
I have a light sailboat that sails rather well and I use an asymmetric spinnaker. I would say that for a cruiser I sail a lot and even so I guess that I motor 1/3 of the time, motorsail 1/3 and sail 1/3 (never letting speed go bellow 6 knots).
So, I guess that when you say “the majority of sailboats actually sail” is a very optimistic statement, at least regarding cruising.

I also don’t find fair, in what regards cruising, to compare 8 hours of use in a sailboat with 8 hours of use in motorboat. The objective of cruising is to travel to nice places, while enjoying the traveling and the stay.

Fact is, that to travel the same distance a motorboat takes less time. Depending on the type of motorboat I would say 25% to 300%, so in what regards costs, you have to take in account not the time, but the traveled distance.

About the pleasure while traveling, I would say that it is a very personal thing: Some don’t trade that 1/3 of the time when it is possible to glide along the scenery in silence, others will find absolutely unbearable to travel 12 hours in a row, when they can do it in 6 or less, in a more kind of lazy way.

Vega

05-01-2006, 09:35 AM

Vega

05-01-2006, 10:09 AM

It is important in considering all of this that one compares like with like. Obviously the cost of fuelling a large planing powerboat will quickly overtake any costs incurred in operating a sailboat (though even this would be interesting to evaluate, given the number of hours the average boater is actually underway.... but that's for another occaision I think).

I'm out of time for now, but as soon as I get a chance I'll look up some examples and we can make some comparsions.

As Greenseas had said, you are very welcomed to this thread and your contribution is needed.

I agree with you that regarding cruising costs, we can leave powerful motorboats out of this thread. They are simply not adequate to low budget cruising:D

Regarding the size of the boats, I disagree. To offer the same interior space, providing also the safety of two engines, a motorboat should be about 3/4ft longer.

About initial costs I will maintain that the best methodology is to find a production motor boat that fits the bill (and see its price). If not possible, we can ask a designer that has the right design, how much would cost to have his boat made by a good builder (If some boats have been built, he would know how much it will cost).

So please, when you have the time, take a look at the available production boats and try to find one that is adequate to this comparison.

SAQuestor

05-01-2006, 10:21 AM

Vega

05-01-2006, 11:10 AM

Folks,

Interesting thread in that I just went through the logic process of a motorsailer versus a power boat for the type of cruising I want to do in my retirement years.
Attached is the resultant Excel spreadsheet that I developed to guide my decision making process.

Your decisions will vary with your intended cruising grounds, but this spreadsheet clearly showed me that during my use of a boat, a pure displacement motor boat that is very fuel efficient is the best way to go.

But I do not intend to cross oceans - if I did, then I would use a sailboat. :)

Best,

Leo

That is very interesting, but certainly it is only a small part of your "decision making process".

It looks that you talk only about fuel consumption and it seems that you only considered the fuel costs of the motorboat. (the fuel costs of the sailingboat will be a lot less, because when it is sailing it is not consuming and when it is motorsailing consumes only about half.

What boats have you considered, initial price of boats (motorboat and sailingboat), What is the cost of maintenance of each boat etc.

Please share the rest with us.

Guillermo

05-01-2006, 02:01 PM

...Sails are great unless the course to your cruising destination is mostly in to the wind. Also offshore you have to take in to consideration the doldrums. No one wants to sit for hours or days waiting for the wind to pick up so economical power comes in to play....
That's why I favour 'fifty/fifty' proper motorsailers as the better all around cruising solution (be them with or without pilothouses :) )

SAQuestor

05-01-2006, 04:26 PM

That is very interesting, but certainly it is only a small part of your "decision making process".

It looks that you talk only about fuel consumption and it seems that you only considered the fuel costs of the motorboat. (the fuel costs of the sailingboat will be a lot less, because when it is sailing it is not consuming and when it is motorsailing consumes only about half.

What boats have you considered, initial price of boats (motorboat and sailingboat), What is the cost of maintenance of each boat etc.

Please share the rest with us.

OK - remember you asked! :eek:

If you go back and look at all my previous posts you’ll find that I started out wanting a motorsailer in the 10-11 meter range.

In the intervening time I have had numerous discussions with friends and acquaintances, both in person, via email and on forums such as this.

Ultimately, the discussions all asked the same two questions: 1) what are your cruising goals and 2) where are your cruising grounds?

After numerous (and I mean LOTS!) of discussions with my ever tolerant wife, she has convinced me that together we have no chance to “sail away” to the Caribbean or points beyond. Now, if I do not want to include her in my future plans… But that’s not a viable option.

So we are limiting ourselves to these areas.

1. Puget Sound to Alaska via the Inside Passage.
2. Coastal Maine, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
3. The Intercoastal Waterway in the Eastern US. The Great Circle route that includes rivers and canals of the Eastern US and Canada. This would include the northern shores of Lake Superior and Georgian Bay off of Lake Huron.
4. Crossing the Gulf Stream to The Bahamas and then in The Bahamas for the winter.
5. Sea of Cortez in Northern Mexico from Puerto Penasco in the north to Cabo San Lucas at the southern end of the sea.

My idea is that the boat would go on a specially designed trailer and be towed behind a suitably sized diesel truck to each cruising area, launched via a crane or straddle lift for a long duration cruise, currently envisioned at 2 weeks to 3 or 4 months, and then placed back on the trailer to haul back to our home base or on to the next cruising area. Obviously this isn’t a boat to be casually towed to the local lake, backed down the ramp, launched for a Sunday afternoon cruise, and then towed home again that night.

As for any production boats that fit my criteria. Not too many that I’ve found. As mentioned in other messages in this thread, production boats do not fit the mould of being fuel efficient and suitable for either marina storage or trailerablility.

We easily find boats that are wonderful floating condos. Or we find boats that use 400 hp turbo diesels to plow water into huge bow waves and stern wakes. Or we find boats that have planning type hulls and use that 400 hp (or more) to scoot along at 18+ knots. Each of these types (as has been mentioned before) have fuel consumption rates that range from an ‘efficient’ 6 GPH using twin 120 Lehman’s to 25+ GPH for the heavy planning boats.

I want to use a very efficient hull form as the basis of my retirement cruiser. Efficiency in this context defined as using the least fuel to move through the water at S/L 1.1-1.2.

Basically I want to use a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel of about 25-30 hp to drive a displacement hull at ~S/L 1.1 to 1.2. With a LWL of about 9m, this, if I have done my calculations correctly, should yield an efficient speed range of ~6 to 6.5 knots with an ultimate hull speed of about 7.3 knots.

I fully recognize that for weekend boaters that this "slow" speed is unacceptable - they need to go fast to get "there" and then get back to the office on Monday morning to earn the money for their boat payments. But this will be my retirement boat and I'll have no office that beckons, no boat payments and thus no need for speed. Safe, slow and fuel miserly will be the watchwords of my retirement years.

As for trailering… In previous conversations/posts/emails there has been considerable doubt expressed about the ability to tow a ~10 meter boat from coast to coast in safety. So let’s address that for a moment.

Regardless of where you live in the world, there are some sort of large diesel powered freight trucks that ply your local highways and byways. Here in the states we call then semi’s or 18-wheelers. These trucks are limited in size to certain heights and widths – generally nothing wider than 8’6” – 2590mm and 13’6” – 4114mm in height. Generally they are limited to 60’ to 65’ – 18 to 19.8 meter overall length – but may have trailers up to 53’ ~16m in length

There are literally thousands and thousands of these trucks on the road – pretty much safely – every day.

Next, let’s address private parties with their pickups and travel trailers – we call them winter residents here in Texas – otherwise known as snowbirds. These folks often tow a 30’ (9m) to 40’+ (12m) 8’6” wide by nearly 13’6” high travel trailer from Indiana or Michigan or Minnesota to warmer climes for the winter. Some even live year-round in their RV’s, moving with the seasons. Many of these folks are in their 60’s and 70’s and maneuver these rigs though city traffic and along the major interstates with few problems.

My research suggests that a boat of less than 3 meters beam would not require any special pilot cars and in most states would only require proper signage for over-width loads and a travel permit. All feasible by the owner without outside assistance.

Having explored this concept thoroughly, the only really tough dimension is the 4100mm total height. Even with the best-designed trailer, this effectively limits the total boat height, from keel to pilothouse top, to something in the neighborhood of 3500-3550mm. Other than this minor restriction, there is no reason that I can see that would keep me from having my “RV” being able to float when I reach suitable water.

Having addressed that, let’s go back to efficient hull forms.

As has been mentioned here and in numerous other threads and places, dock space is a premium commodity – and is very expensive. Therefore we have the floating condos and other tall and wide boats that can never be efficient at anything but occupying a limited space at a marina dock.

I can find no recent examples of US or European production boats that put moving efficiency before docked efficiency. I’d be most pleased if someone could point any examples out to me.

One more point. It seems that marina space is being lost at an alarming rate to other development – condos and Wal-Mart’s etc. Perhaps not having to have a boat permanently docked at a marina is a viable alternative.

Let’s look at this example as what can be achieved in a 10m X 3m ‘envelope’, http://www.loganboats.co.nz

This Logan 33 is similar to my idea, but its limited production – and 7000+ miles away – seems to limit my ability to own one. :-(

They claim to move this boat along quite nicely at about 3 liters/hr (.8 US gallon). Going back and plugging in some additional numbers in my earlier spreadsheet suggests that their fuel mileage would be about 10 nm/US gallon – 11.5 statute MPG or ~6km/liter. Their specs claim a 600nm range and using the quoted consumption rates I get a smidgeon more than that with a 20% reserve. Pretty efficient I’d say.

So how to get similar results from a boat here in North America? To me the obvious answer is to build one. So what to build?

First, let’s chat about hull form. In order to get the maximum fuel efficiency the boat must slip through the water with minimum fuss. What does that mean? No substantial bow wave and no large wake at that quoted ‘efficient’ S/L speed.

I haven’t found too many recent full displacement designs by any designer that have fuel efficiency at the forefront. I’ve been forced to look at older boat designs – say from the late steam era or early internal combustion era for inspiration. Why those eras?

Well mainly because (generally) engines of those times were of low power output and the hull forms needed to be ‘slippery’ (for lack of a better term) to maximize the advantage of those lower power prime movers.

My research suggests that there are a few attributes that helped make these boats suitable.

Almost all had a fine entry, “ample” amidships breadth and depth, and a stern shape that allows the water to flow back together with minimal fuss. A general example of the type of hull form I see as being very efficient, albeit much shorter than what I want, is here: http://www.whitehallrow.com

Now before the criticism gets too intense, I mean this as just one example of an efficient hull form with the three attributes that I mention above. Obviously if one is going to power a hull with an IC engine rather than oars, then the >>exact<< shape needs to be refined and optimized for power. And that may mean that it won’t look like this nice Whitehall at all.

Regardless, another potential hull candidate is here: http://www.selway-fisher.com/New2001.htm

Scroll down about ½ way for the 30' IJSSEL LAUNCH

Then continue scrolling to about ¾ the way down the page for 32' x 10' MOTOR BARGE

Now the Ijssel launch is a hull form that might be suitable as is. I’ll communicate with the folks at Selway-Fisher about that possibility.

And even though it isn’t the most seaworthy nor efficient design, the 32’ motor barge certainly could be a candidate should one want to limit their cruising to the ICW and environs close ashore. This design would be problematic conforming to the overall height limitation. No way to fit over top of the trailer tires and still nestle the keel down low.

Finally, acquisition and operation costs – based on 2005/2006 prices.

Suitable tow vehicle can be obtained from one of those snowbird folks that are retiring from snowbirding. Say a 5 to 7 year old heavy-duty diesel truck that has been set up for towing a 5th wheel travel trailer. Might have to buy the truck and trailer combo and sell the trailer. Say $12-15k for a suitable tow vehicle. Fuels and maintenance per year: Fuel costs are highly variable, but between 600 and 800 US gallons – say between $4 and 5k for 8000 miles, and normal maintenance – say $1.5k

$15k acquisition.
$6k annual expenses on average.

The special trailer. There are dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of specialty trailer manufacturers throughout the US. Push come to shove one of them could build the trailer. Otherwise spec out a suitable stock trailer and build my own using similar materials. Another $7-10k for the trailer. Perhaps $1k annual maintenance.

$10k acquisition.
$1k annual maintenance.

The boat. Relying heavily on eBay for “bargains” I expect to spend between $50k and $75k to build the boat over a 3.5 to 4 year period.

$65k Building costs.
$6.5k annual maintenance.
$3k to $5k annual operating costs – depending on fuel costs.

Totals

$69 to $100k acquisition costs.
$10k to $12k annual operating/maintenance costs.
Annual afloat mileage – 3000 to 6000 nautical miles

Estimated cost per mile:

3000nm = $3.33 to $4.00 per mile
6000nm = $1.67 to $2.00 per mile

Maybe I want that 35’ RV trailer after all.

Best,

Leo

Vega

05-01-2006, 06:36 PM

How about this one to compare?

It is a nice looking trawler, the Nordhavn 40.
It has about the same interior space (less a head), a 105 hp main engine and a small engine of 27 hp, just in case things go wrong with the main.

It looks a sensible cruising boat to me, it is also a class A boat and has a consumption of only 1,6galons/hour at 6 knots.

What do you say? Can you post a better option?:)

http://www.nordhavn.com/40/overview.php4

Vega

05-01-2006, 06:43 PM

After numerous (and I mean LOTS!) of discussions with my ever tolerant wife, she has convinced me that together we have no chance to “sail away” to the Caribbean or points beyond. Now, if I do not want to include her in my future plans… But that’s not a viable option.

Leo

Leo, you can do like me.
I sail alone to the cruising grounds, my wife joins me there....by airplane... and then we cruise together:D

Greenseas2

05-01-2006, 06:46 PM

Take a look at the Colvic Watson motorsailers in the UK. They seem to be close to what you are describing. They would fit on a trailer, minus mast. The road clearance on all USW highways is 14 feet with some local clearances at the 12 foot level. Buying a European boat and having it shipped over would be easy enough. As a matter of fact there are two of us who are thinking seriously of buy Colvic watsons and power sailing them back. UK to Azores to Halifax, Nova Scotia nd down the east coast to Florida. I communicated with Paul Fisher about his 32 footer and it is basically and ICW, lakes and rivers boat as is his 45 foot strip plank design. Theres another power only boat on Yachtworld.com. It's a 32 foot Monterey Clipper that's up for sail. I'll be looking at it when we fly to san Francisco on May 17th.

SAQuestor

05-01-2006, 07:14 PM

What do you say? Can you post a better option?:) ]

No. Not that compares.

But looking on Yachtworld just now the least expensive N40 is US $375k going up to $638k.

I know, I know, what do I want a boat for if I can't afford a nice boat?

But this particular nice boat is out of my league. :(

SAQuestor

05-01-2006, 07:16 PM

Take a look at the Colvic Watson motorsailers in the UK. They seem to be close to what you are describing.

I have and they are. And when push comes to shove I just may do exactly as you've suggested.

Greenseas2

05-01-2006, 09:38 PM

Guillermo is correct, for long distance cruising motorsailers are best. The trick is when to let one mode of propulsion augment the other for best economy. I opt for the pilothouse in southern latitudes as the sun can really beat on you and canvas dodgers and biminis seam to increase the heat. Also keeps yopu dry in stormy seas. Nothing worse than a rash cause by salt grains. Probably the best designis a full bellied motorsailer with bige plates so she can stand up on the bottom when the tide goes out. Lets face it. Long distance boats aren't particularly fast, but they are comfortable, seaworthy and ecomomical at hull speed or a little above. As with any boat, maintenance expense goes down with preventive maintenance. Any boat is a large investment and the better that you take care of it, the better it will take care of you. Attention to small details.

Willallison

05-01-2006, 11:02 PM

Regarding the size of the boats, I disagree. To offer the same interior space, providing also the safety of two engines, a motorboat should be about 3/4ft longer

I'm more than a little surprised to hear you say that Vega, in my initial looking I compared the sail boat that you suggested - the Beneteau 392 with a Great Harbour 37. The Beneteau has approx 23.5 sq.m of interior living space: the Great Harbour (2 feet shorter) has almost 30 sq.m

In general sailboats have far finer ends than powerboats and as such do not offer the same volume for a given length. Further (and the Nordhavn 40 that was posted is a prime example) many power boats offer more than one level of living area.

My initial thought was to look at the Nordhavn. Unfortunately, whilst it is an excellent ocean passagemaker it is also one that comes from the premium end of the market. The Beneteau on the other hand is very much a price-based boat.
Ideally one would compare power and sailboats from the same manufacturer. But there are not many examples of this either - Beneteau is one, Hinckley is another - but in both cases their powerboats are not displacement cruisers.

Before looking any further, I think it would be sensible to compartmentalise our search(es)

I suggest three categories for comparison:
1. Ocean Crossing
2. Coastal Cruising
3. Weekender, though this 3rd option could probably be included in 2.

I say this because a boat like the Nordhavn, which is designed to cross oceans, is necessarily far more robust than is required for the vast majority of cruisers, who are never likely to venture out of sight of land. The same could be said of many sail boats

Mychael

05-02-2006, 12:20 AM

Correct, I was indeed simplifying and probably also from a hypothetical point of view. As I come from an aviation background we tend to think in terms of "hours of use". As there are so many variables all I was trying to say was if you had boat "A" (dedicated motor cruiser) and boat "b" (dedicated sail user) and used both equaly in terms of time and days used what would then end cost of both be? Costing for the sail boat wear and tear on the "Sail specific" equipment and the motor boat with it's fuel and 'engine specific " costs. I would guess that cleaning and anti-fouling of a 30ft hull whether it be sail or motor powered would be similer as would other equipment like bilge pumps, heads, stoves etc etc.

Mychael

Guillermo

05-02-2006, 12:56 AM

.... the vast majority of cruisers, who are never likely to venture out of sight of land....
The sight of land...that's a place dangerous to sail and most acccidents happen. If you are caught in a storm whith a lee shore and your Nordhavn 105 HP engine fails, you only have the 27 HP good-for-nothing 'home maker': You'll better pray Saint Pedro Telmo for the salvage services to be efficient!

Paulo, I have to agree with Will: Motorboats usually have much more inside room than sailing boats. That's one of the reasons why many people go motoring. Trawlers, like the Nordhavn, are pretty good to that end.

Talking about the best engine arrangement for a motoring passagemaker with a lot of hotel services, like usual nowadays, probably a diesel electric arrangement with two engines, two generators and one big slow turning propeller handled by an efficient electric motor, is the safest & fuel efficient alternative. I would like to know opinions on this.

SeaSpark posted in another thread (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11378) the alternative of two engines and a generator belt coupled to a sigle shaft. This has the inconvenience of needing three clutches, but the advantage of relying less on electronics (remember lightning). Nice.

And, when all else fails, a nice sailing rig will clew you out of a lee shore or, on the other hand, will make you run happily miles on end in a tradewind. Motorsailers once again!!! :) :) :)

Vega

05-02-2006, 05:17 AM

I'm more than a little surprised to hear you say that Vega, in my initial looking I compared the sail boat that you suggested - the Beneteau 392 with a Great Harbour 37. The Beneteau has approx 23.5 sq.m of interior living space: the Great Harbour (2 feet shorter) has almost 30 sq.m

In general sailboats have far finer ends than powerboats and as such do not offer the same volume for a given length. Further (and the Nordhavn 40 that was posted is a prime example) many power boats offer more than one level of living area.

My initial thought was to look at the Nordhavn. Unfortunately, whilst it is an excellent ocean passagemaker it is also one that comes from the premium end of the market. The Beneteau on the other hand is very much a price-based boat.
Ideally one would compare power and sailboats from the same manufacturer. But there are not many examples of this either - Beneteau is one, Hinckley is another - but in both cases their powerboats are not displacement cruisers.

Before looking any further, I think it would be sensible to compartmentalise our search(es)

I suggest three categories for comparison:
1. Ocean Crossing
2. Coastal Cruising
3. Weekender, though this 3rd option could probably be included in 2.

I say this because a boat like the Nordhavn, which is designed to cross oceans, is necessarily far more robust than is required for the vast majority of cruisers, who are never likely to venture out of sight of land. The same could be said of many sail boats--

You are right about everything. When I said that a motorboat should be about 3/4ft longer, I was not thinking about trawlers or boats that can offer two levels of living area. That remains true for the kind of slim efficiency oriented motorboats like the one I have posted in post 10.
I guess that we will have to look at the interior space of each proposed boat.

About the quality of the two boats, you are right again. It is only that I can not find any cruising price oriented motorboat. I guess that one solution will be to declare (by lack of competition), the sailboat a winner in the budget category and find a suitable high-end class sailboat to compare with the Nordhavn.:p (but I am still looking).

About Oceangoing boats, it is my perception that in what regards passagemaking boats, the sailboat will always be a very clear winner. It is a lot easier to make seaworthy sailboats than seaworthy motorboats , and therefore less expensive and the sailboats will have also the consumption advantage.

So, I guess that it will make sense to concentrate this study in coastal cruising with some offshore capacity, even if the proposed sailboats have the advantage of being also oceangoing boats.

Vega

05-02-2006, 05:19 AM

Vega

05-02-2006, 05:42 AM

The sight of land...that's a place dangerous to sail and most acccidents happen. If you are caught in a storm whith a lee shore and your Nordhavn 105 HP engine fails, you only have the 27 HP good-for-nothing 'home maker': You'll better pray Saint Pedro Telmo for the salvage services to be efficient!

Paulo, I have to agree with Will: Motorboats usually have much more inside room than sailing boats. That's one of the reasons why many people go motoring. Trawlers, like the Nordhavn, are pretty good to that end.

Talking about the best engine arrangement for a motoring passagemaker with a lot of hotel services, like usual nowadays, probably a diesel electric arrangement with two engines, two generators and one big slow turning propeller handled by an efficient electric motor, is the safest & fuel efficient alternative. I would like to know opinions on this.

I agree with what you say about the 27 hp. In a stormy sea I believe it will be pretty useless, but to be fair, if you lose the rig on your sailboat (in similar conditions), the 29hp engine of a pure sailboat will also be close to useless. The Oceanis with 55hp is a lot better.

About the inside space, I have already replied to Willallison. I guess that it will depend on the motorboat.

About the diesel electric, you know I like the concept, but let's stick to what the market can offer now, as standard engines.

About my opinion on Diesel-electric, I will post something (when I have time) in the thread about Diesel-electric motors.

Greenseas2

05-02-2006, 07:57 AM

A sailboat will require slightly higher maintenance costs than a power boat in that everything deteriorates in a salt water environment. However, many of these costs are spread over a relatively long period of time. As an example, electric wires inside of a mast deteriorate to the point that mast head wind instrucments are disabled, as are steaming lights, anchor lights and spreader/mast mounted deck lights. Masts have to be removed periodically and rewired. While a mast is down is a good time to check rigging and replace it if necessary. All of this costs money. Mast removal and replacement by a reputable and knowledgeable boat yard will cost over $1,000 plus any work. For those who have painted masts, this is another expense if you want your boat to be Bristol.
A little tip on inexpensive boat maintenance for both asil and power is flushing the salt crystals out of your cooling system. Put clear white vinegar in a 5 gallon bucket, close the through hull valve and disconnect the engine water intake hose at the through hull. Put the hose in the bucket of vinegar and fire up the engine. This will clean out any accumulate salt crystals in the cooling system and also clean out you exhaust muffler with raw water cooling systems. Also good before winter dry storage up noth before adding nontoxic antifreeze. Flushing with cut down on internal rust and extend he life of the cooling system a engine.

Vega

05-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Hey! I have found a very nice one.

How about the Sturier 40, to compare (I knew the boat but could not remember the name... gave me some trouble to find the site:rolleyes: )

About the interior space, this one has one cabin and a head less, but has a dining space, so I guess it is a match.

Fact is that this boat is a class act, and it is not comparable to the Beneteau in quality. Guess we have to compare it with a Nordship 40, for example, if you guys can not find anything better, I mean, motorboats.;)

http://www.sturier.nl/sturierned/Sturier400OCinternet.wmv
http://www.sturier.com/

Greenseas2

05-02-2006, 04:12 PM

Beautiful boat but looks expensive. What's the going price for a used one?

Vega

05-02-2006, 06:45 PM

It is difficult to find used boats and it looks that the boat has a high resale value.

http://www.sturier.nl/occasions/400oc.html

How about this one?

The steel hull costs for a 13,5m boat 60900 euros incl. vat and the 15m costs 69000 eu.

http://www.vvmt.nl/
http://www.boten.nl/Motorboot/1092638/Beurtvaerder-13.50_of_15.00.html
http://www.yachtsfromdutch.com/motoryachts/Van%20Vuuren/default.htm
http://www.cascona.nl/beurtvarder1350_technische_gegev.htm
http://www.vvmt.nl/fr_index.html?/Beurtvaerder-tekeningen.html
http://www.cascona.nl/beurtvaerder1350_fotogalerij.htm

Greenseas2

05-02-2006, 08:27 PM

Willallison

05-02-2006, 09:30 PM

Sorry guys, I simply haven't the time to devote to this that it deserves at the moment. I have my final Westlawn exam to complete and submit, so until then I'll have to restrict my input to the occaisional comment.

I've just sent off a couple of emails
- one to the editor of Passagmaker magazine, who has experience in both sail and power and who, if I recall correctly has made similar comments to mine in the past.
- The other was to Steve Dashew. If there's anyone more qualified to comment on build owning and operating both sail and power passagemakers, I'd be very surprised.

We can only wait and see what comes of it....

Vega - I would disagree that a sailboat is inherently safer offshore than a power boat. That said I would say that the vast majority of sailboats are safer than the vast majority of power boats offshore. It's simply a matter of design priorities and objectives - so given the way most power boats are used, things like ultimate stability are not given the attention that maybe they should....

FAST FRED

05-03-2006, 06:35 AM

The usual set of sails will stand 5 years of exposure to sunlight.

Thats a lot of miles if you do two circumnavigations, not much value if they rot uncovered at a dock.

Speed is the ONLY advantage of a marine motorist , if you can afford 1 gallon per mile.
At displacement speeds most sail boats use less fuel because the usual smaller engine is a better match to the actual HP required.

Of course there arent many 3 story sailboats with Oxygen tents perched above , so accomidations may suffer on the sailboat.

FAST FRED

Greenseas2

05-03-2006, 07:33 AM

Fred, sialboat designers have done a pretty good job of putting a lot of livability in to efficient hull designs. For the mega sail boats you can get a multi deck plan of 2 to 3 stories if you want to pay the price. The amount and luxury found on boats is centered around the almighty buck.

Vega

05-03-2006, 09:36 AM

I've just sent off a couple of emails
- one to the editor of Passagmaker magazine, who has experience in both sail and power and who, if I recall correctly has made similar comments to mine in the past.
- The other was to Steve Dashew. If there's anyone more qualified to comment on build owning and operating both sail and power passagemakers, I'd be very surprised.

We can only wait and see what comes of it....
.

Good move:)

Vega - I would disagree that a sailboat is inherently safer offshore than a power boat. That said I would say that the vast majority of sailboats are safer than the vast majority of power boats offshore. It's simply a matter of design priorities and objectives - so given the way most power boats are used, things like ultimate stability are not given the attention that maybe they should..
.

I did not said that a "sailboat is inherently safer offshore than a power boat".

I have said:” It is a lot easier to make seaworthy sailboats than seaworthy motorboats , and therefore less expensive”, I mean a sailboat, by design, has to have already a lot of stability (to be able to use sails), so you don’t have to pay extra $ for it.

Vega

05-03-2006, 10:00 AM

That is the style that I have been looking at for the past couple of months. Problem is we need the designs in the US as the cost of shipping either the finished boat or precut kits is very expensive. Also looking in the 45 foot range. Small power plant and plenty of room to work on the engine.

The Beurtvaerber 1350 (13,5 m) seems to fit all your demands. 45ft = 13,7 m. The engine is a small one, in a big engine compartment.

For the designs try to talk with the designer, I am sure he will be happy to have a traditional Dutch boat built in the States.
The problem is that I have tried but could not find it (the designer). I don’t know if it is Henri de Groot.:confused: But you can email him and ask about the plans, or ask for help to the Dutch members of this forum. ;)

http://www.cascona.nl/index.htm

fcfc

05-03-2006, 05:38 PM

I did not said that a "sailboat is inherently safer offshore than a power boat".

I have said:” It is a lot easier to make seaworthy sailboats than seaworthy motorboats , and therefore less expensive”, I mean a sailboat, by design, has to have already a lot of stability (to be able to use sails), so you don’t have to pay extra $ for it.

You do not have to pay it as extra, but you have to pay it. You pay the lead in the ballast, you pay the bottom structure, you pay the draft in your marina fees, you pay the lack of speed.

For motorboats, you can pay the seaworthiness as an extra. But when you look at leisure boater population, you will find that the one that truly want to cross atlantic represent less than 0.0001% of the population. The huge majority is not interested by seaworthiness beyond force 4-5.

If you look at Nordhavn boats, they are sold as passagemakers. Nordhavn have sold about 500 boats. They made a marketing mistake. They though in 2004 they could launch a transatlantic rally for their customers. At the idea stage, they interested 70 customers. At the inscription stage, they were only 35. On the start line they were a mere 14. So they accepeted others boats. They sold the idea of a 2006 rally to an external organization. who have given up, too few participants.
This from a base of 500 passagemaker boats.

When you look at this boat : http://www.rangeboat.com/index.php and you see a 40 ft boat category C protected waters. (or the beneteau trawler in category B) It is not a design flaw. It just good management. It is not worth spending money on higher certification since no paying customer will ever need it or even ask for it. By force 6 or 7, most leisure boaters do think it is no longer a leisure, and go to the nearest shelter if they are at sea.

Willallison

05-03-2006, 07:01 PM

Speed is the ONLY advantage of a marine motorist , if you can afford 1 gallon per mile.
At displacement speeds most sail boats use less fuel because the usual smaller engine is a better match to the actual HP required.

Fred, as expected I would take issue with an absurd statement such as that, but we are not here to argue which is better - sail or power - as there will never be an answer that will satisfy us all. We are here to examine the costs associated with building, owning and operating boats of each type.

I have also sent an email to Jim Leishman, founder of Nordhavn and asked for his input. I'm not too sure that he'd agree with much of what you guys have said about his boats!;) . If he chooses to respond, we'll see....

FAST FRED

05-04-2006, 06:03 AM

The usual building costs will be higher for the marine motorist if the vessel will have any usefull ocean abilities.

Just the cost of far far larger windows , ports and doors will add many thousands , esp if they are built for blue water work and have storm ports.

Size for size the extra windage of the sail rig does not compare to the huge pilot houses on motorboats , so the ground tackle and retrival gear will need to be heavier , and more complex/costly.

The inherent lack of stability in the motorboat usually requires either a full active stabilization system , computer , hyd activated fins , pumps , spair parts and extra holes in the bottom,
OR paravanes (flopper stoppers) with the usual attending acres of pipes and wires to enable them to be used.

All more cost and maintance , and the loss of the ability to clear low bridges.

For the "poo folk" our green friend is contemplating cruising , there are FAR more used ocean usefull sail boats than motor boats.

Even the ralley quoted above was a near disaster with swimmers needed to go from boat to boat , mid ocean, to attemp to solve problems from complex , not owner maintainable equippment.

A simple used sailboat would only require refreshing anything that was too worn to finish voyage contemplated.And a self steering gear like the Aries.

KISS is the way to low cost cruising , but can the "Modern Man" survive with out refrigeration, sat TV , icemaker , central heat ,ect, ect?

I lenjoy KISS ,
but I LOVE my Hyd Capstan to drag that 60lb Danforth or CQR and chain into its chocks too!

FAST FRED

Greenseas2

05-04-2006, 08:11 AM

Fred, I agree with you 100% on the kiss principle; however, whether motor, sailor or motorsail, keeping all necessary systems as 12 volt systems eliminates a lot of problems, plus equipping a boat with only those items necessary. 12 volt Adler/Barbour refrigeration systems were actually first designed for long range cruising vessels and draw the least current of any similar units. It's not necessary to have the unit on full time either. You can chill for about 2 hours and have the unit off for about 4 hours, all done with an inline timmer. Of course, if the unt is continually opened, it will have to be on full time, but thermos containers can help with both hot and cold foods to minimize the need to open the refrigeration unit. A power budget will tell you if you are over taxing your electrical system. If more power charging is needed to support electronics or electrical needs, the wind chargers today put out about 400 watts. The "I want syndrome" is what causes the price of the vessel to sky rocket. Just like an automobile, the added accessories can add costs that are phenominal.

Seafarer24

05-04-2006, 05:02 PM

Standing rigging only costs money to maintain and replace if you have it. Do away with the standing rigging and run free-standing spars, and you'll do away with considerable expense and complexity.

Sails are only expensive if they're complex designs, and/or for a large boat. Cruising sails don't need to work at peak efficiency, and can last a rather long time if properly maintained. Most of that maintenance is not difficult to do, and the owner can handle it. It's not hard for the owner to make a Chinese Lug sail either (Junk sail) as these are simple rectangular sections. They can perform well, and are set on free-standing masts
( www.brandadventures.net )

I was aboard 1976 Freedom 40 #1 earlier this year. It's aluminum free-standing masts are still in use, its sails are 10 years old and still serviceable. It got its first engine (a 70HP outboard) in 1998. If I had the money I'd have bought that boat in a heartbeat. Comfortable, low-maintance, good-performing boats don't come around every day.
( www.seafarer-research-center.com/modesty.htm )

You can't say "which is more economical" and then compare two brand-new high-tech machines that were never designed to be economical in the first place.

Willallison

05-04-2006, 07:06 PM

Fred, Seafareer, Greenseas - I find myself now agreeing with all three of you:p
The KISS principle can indeed be applied to boats, both power and sail - you won't find paravanes etc on a lifeboat, for instance...;)
I must return you all to my comments that sparked this thread -

It's a mistake to think that buying a sailboat will save you money. Many times I've seen the results of studies that show that a full displacement power boat is indeed less costly to buy and own.

and then a further clarification -

without wanting to hijack this thread, or turn it into a sail vs power debate - I'm not suggesting that it's always less expensive to own a powerboat, just that it's certainly not always the opposite..... buying, owning and operating a boat (as I know you are well aware) is about a lot more than the cost of fuel.

It's also worth remembering, as other have noted, that VERY few people use their vessels to cross oceans. Most are content to slip down the coast for a night or two of R&R in a quiet anchorage. For these people, storm shutters, watermakers, stabilisers etc etc are completely irrelevant.

FAST FRED

05-05-2006, 06:04 AM

For these people, storm shutters, watermakers, stabilisers etc etc are completely irrelevant.

For them a 13ft Boston Whaler with tent would be an inexpensive choice.

12 volt Adler/Barbour refrigeration systems were actually first designed for long range cruising vessels and draw the least current of any similar units.

NOT SO! The origonal CRUISING A/B system was a cold plate (Eutetic plate) and modified York air cond compressor and engine drive..
This is very sucessfull , our own setup has 6 inches of insulation and dual 0-F coldplates.
We run the engine 2 hours every 3rd day and maintain +5F in the freezer.

The DC version was started for the weekend folks who needed a night or two "on the hook" , with all the comforts.

Today the cold plate syatem MAY have been surpassed by the electric versions , but not for long range cruising.

DEAD batts are the usual problem , and UNREPAIRABLE by an owner or local fridge guy is another.

The Coldplate System is similar enough to any auto air cond that most anyone can repair it. The system comes with an Owner Troubbleshooting guide that has saved many a full freezer in West Nowhere..

I worked for A/B in the 70's so am familiar with the units, and the company history.

FAST FRED

Greenseas2

05-05-2006, 07:31 AM

Thanks for the clarification Fred. I've seen a few engine driven systems, but also believe that they are for boats with larger horse power. Recently I have also read about an electronic cold plate system and will go back and try to find the article. Your comment about 6 inches of inulation is quite right. We doubled the insulation in our cold box and it made a big difference. Not quite 6 inches though. Dead batteries are more of a function of not having a power budget for the boat than failing batteries. I would say that only about 1 in 100 boaters, or less, know how much each item's current draw is and fewer have, or pay attention to battery monitoring equpiment. For the long distance cruise, this is crucial.

Vega

05-05-2006, 11:15 AM

You do not have to pay it as extra, but you have to pay it. You pay the lead in the ballast, you pay the bottom structure, you pay the draft in your marina fees, you pay the lack of speed.

you pay the Draft in marina fees? That is new to me…it’s a French thing?:confused:

With so many extra things to pay I can not understand why I can not find a production cruiser motorboat that costs less than the double of what costs the Oceanis, and that one is not even the budget priced oriented line of sailboats from Beneteau.:rolleyes:

For motorboats, you can pay the seaworthiness as an extra. The huge majority is not interested by seaworthiness beyond force 4-5.

I guess that French motorboaters (for example) are not interested in the best and most beautiful French cruising grounds. I mean Corse. For that you have to make a small passage (100 m) ruled by the “Mistral”. That one can appear without any weather forecast warning, really from nowhere, with blue skies and all. You can have a force 7 to 9 in few hours.
And of course, it is illegal to try that passage in a class C boat (if you have any problem your insurance will stay out of it).

What a pity.:P

By force 6 or 7, most leisure boaters do think it is no longer a leisure, and go to the nearest shelter if they are at sea.

Yes I agree, but if you are cruising (Corse, Balearic Islands, Sardinia etc), you can be 50 miles away from any shelter, and in a Class C boat, there is a possibility that you may not be able to make it, not to mention that the shore is the worst place to turn to when things get really bad:(

FAST FRED

05-06-2006, 06:10 AM

"Dead batteries are more of a function of not having a power budget for the boat than failing batteries."

In our experience a lack of understanding and being CHEAP is the cause for most dead batt systems.

An E-meter or Link 1000 will tell anyone the EXACT state of charge in their batt setup , but at $200. not many folks understand how much money is saved by NOT killing the batteries annually.

Most folks also cheap out on the recharge side , and expect a car alternator to handle deep cycle house batteries.
Sure it WILL, if you have 10 or more hours of motoring each and every day.

A 3 or 4 stage Voltage regulator also is $200 , so seldome seen.

You are correct that most folks don't have any clues to their electric consumption ,
but a good meter and a good recharge system will save them from their lack of interest.
IF they will $pend the ca$h.

FAST FRED

Willallison

05-07-2006, 07:41 PM

Ok - I'm going to bang the 1st nail into the coffin of the argument of the cost of sail over power... though even I was surprised by the difference he suggests!
Steve Dashew was kind enough to respond to my email. For those not familiar with his 'work', visit www.setsail.com

Hi Will:

Interesting question. We studied operating costs quite carefully when designing our present FPB 83. This is a slender, 83’ ocean crossing motor yacht which is very efficient. We compared this design with Beowulf, a 78’ high performance cruising ketch.

Using diesel at a cost of US$2.25/US Gallon, the operating cost of the motor yacht is about 60% of the cost of the sailing vessel when all things are considered. For sail these include replacement of sails, running rigging, sail maintenance, and occasional maintenance on the spars and standing rigging, winches and deck hardware. For the motor vessel we include fuel, oil, maintenance, and replacement of engine and gearbox at 20,000 hours (although tghey should be good for 30,000 hours).

The costs will vary a little with higher fuel. At US$3.00 per US Gallon the motor yacht costs about 75% of the sailing vessel’s cost per mile. Ore, one can slow down from 11 to 10.3 knots and the ratio would remain the same.

For smaller sailing yachts the costs would be closer as the sails could be used for a longer period.

Hope this helps.

Regards – Steve Dashew

PS-we have been averaging US 7.4 gallons per hour at 11 knots for propulsion, hydraulics, and the generation of electricity, running at 11 to 11.5 knots, usually with some head wind and head seas.

The boats that Steve refers to are both at the premium end of the market of course, but I'd be surprised if there were anyone more qualified to make the comparison.

Ari

05-07-2006, 10:09 PM

Willallison

05-07-2006, 11:34 PM

The power boat will cost 60% LESS to run than the sail boat

SheetWise

05-08-2006, 12:10 AM

Willallison --

He wrote that the operating cost will be 60-75% of sail -- this translates to 40% less for power at US $2.25 gallon and 25% less at $3 gallon.

Willallison

05-08-2006, 01:35 AM

Yes - sorry - wrote that in a hurry - you're quite right... 60% of the cost of sail

Vega

05-08-2006, 10:38 AM

Interesting question. We studied operating costs quite carefully when designing our present FPB 83. This is a slender, 83’ ocean crossing motor yacht which is very efficient. We compared this design with Beowulf, a 78’ high performance cruising ketch.
Using diesel at a cost of US$2.25/US Gallon, the operating cost of the motor yacht is about 60% of the cost of the sailing vessel when all things are considered. ….

The costs will vary a little with higher fuel. At US$3.00 per US Gallon the motor yacht costs about 75% of the sailing vessel’s cost per mile. Ore, one can slow down from 11 to 10.3 knots and the ratio would remain the same.

For smaller sailing yachts the costs would be closer as the sails could be used for a longer period,....

Ok - I'm going to bang the 1st nail into the coffin of the argument of the cost of sail over power... though even I was surprised by
.......The boats that Steve refers to are both at the premium end of the market of course,....

I don’t see what a 83 ft (or a 78ft) boat has to do with economy while cruising.:confused:

Remember that the purpose of this thread is to see in what kind of boat (sailing or motor) cruising is less expensive and if someone is concerned about this, it is because he is not rich.:confused:

Anyway you can say to Mr Dashew not to cruise in Europe, because here a US/Gallon of fuel costs about US$4.84

With his own calculations and parameters, a motorboat would be now about 12% more expensive…and the cost of diesel is not going to come down. I would say that you should expect a 20% to 50% increase in the next 10 years, so that difference towards the sailing boat is going to be very, very substantial, not only here, but anywhere…..But anyway this is hardly of any importance for the owner of a 84ft “at the premium end of the market.”:p

Of course, it would be very interesting if you could obtain the parameters that Mr Dashew had used on his calculations. Perhaps they can be of some use, regarding the use of an adequately modestly sized boat (40ft), for economical cruising even if it is not really needed.

The only thing that is needed is that you, or any of the cruising motorboaters, chose in the world Market, the boat that we will compare with the Oceanis.

The methodology is quite simple and it is the one that is widely used in auto magazines to compare the price of each mile, for each car.

We will begin with the initial price of the boat, consider a 10 year (or 15, if you want) time period, have a difference between initial price and the resale value of the boat (considering the actual resale % value, between the cost of a new boat and a 10 year old boat) and the number you get is the cost of having that boat for 10 years without using it , out of the water.

Now we can, and it will not be difficult, make the cost calculations for different kinds of uses.
I will say four mileages/year: 500 miles/year, 1500 miles/year, 5000 miles/year and 10 000 miles a year.

And then we will see about those nails.:D

I am still waiting for that boat, but now I am so curious that if someone is not capable of having a better option, I will do the calculations with that Dutch boat, the Sturier 40 (when I have the time).;)

Vega

05-08-2006, 04:44 PM

It will be this 40ft?

Nice boat;)

Willallison

05-08-2006, 08:02 PM

I don’t see what a 83 ft (or a 78ft) boat has to do with economy while cruising.

Remember that the purpose of this thread is to see in what kind of boat (sailing or motor) cruising is less expensive and if someone is concerned about this, it is because he is not rich.

I beg to differ. Whilst you started this thread - and as such it is up to you the parameters of the discussion - it was as a result of some comments that I made. I think that they are worth repeating (again;) ).

without wanting to hijack this thread, or turn it into a sail vs power debate - I'm not suggesting that it's always less expensive to own a powerboat, just that it's certainly not always the opposite..... buying, owning and operating a boat (as I know you are well aware) is about a lot more than the cost of fuel.

No mention of size or quality of the boat, just a simple statement.
In Steve Dashew's case, power has indeed proved to be less expensive than sail.
You make a good point about the difference in the cost of fuel from one region to another. Though it's important also to remember that the Dashew's included far more than just fuel costs in their comparisons. It would indeed be interesting to know a bit more about their method of comparison - particularly what proportion of the costs were for fuel. I'm a little hesitant to ask though - I don't want to pester these guys!

In terms of choosing a powerboat that can sensibly compete against the Oceanis that you put forward, sadly I simply haven't had the time to give it any serious consideration:(
By the look of the boat you last suggested it is one of the smaller Selene's (?) and I suspect it is a semi-displacement boat, so as such would not be sensible choice. One of the problems is in finding a displacement boat that is aimed at this end of the market - most come standard as quite highly spec'd boats that are aimed more towards the premium end. I will make a point of trying to find one, I promise - I just can't say when...

Ari

05-09-2006, 02:13 AM

Will, I don't know about the others..thank you from me for putting in that comparison from Steve Dashew.That size of boats might be too big for some, but that info suit me well. If there is detail comparison of smaller size..it'll be better.

fcfc

05-09-2006, 06:01 AM

I fear Vega request is a bit biased because Vega wants to buy an Oceanis 393 and his wife would prefer a motorboat. So he has to show her that an Oceanis is the best and only choice he could make.:P

I agree.

I am a sailboat sailor but my wife hates to have to move away to allow me to trim the sails.
She would be very happy if I bought a motor boat, not any motor boat, but a Menorquin.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=85093
Leo, you can do like me.
I sail alone to the cruising grounds, my wife joins me there....by airplane... and then we cruise together:D
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=86182

I have already said that no volume powerboat manufacturer would be fool enought to try to compete againts mainstream sail boats. (beneteau only has 3 sailboats in that range: first 40.3, oceanis 393 and cyclade 39. I do not speak of other manufacturers as bavaria, elan etc ... etc ...).

But if ou look at small production, or one off designs, you can find:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jean-pierre.brouns/doc/SILENT%20TROLLER%2040.zip
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jean-pierre.brouns/doc/JMF%2039.zip
You have M Joubert design "King Atlantique" build by Meta (sorry, not internet reference).
http://www.tadroberts.ca/passagemakerlite.html# (the 39 if you can display the picture).
http://www.kastenmarine.com/moxie.htm ( http://www.kastenmarine.com/molly.htm a bit small)

More production but smaller and lower cost :
http://www.babac-yachten.de/babac/Adria1000.htm with the 80 hp cummins
http://www.sas-vektor.hr/prod04.htm
The above boat shows powerboats fate. They start as true displacement powerboats, but as customer request more speed (and are willing to pay for it), they add power, not always redesigning the boat. The best illustration of this trend is the Grand Banks 42 who started life with twin 120 hp and ended life with twin 420 hp. The new replacing model starts with twin 500 hp.

fcfc

05-09-2006, 06:30 AM

forgot :
http://www.tantonyachts.com/Image10.gif
http://www.tantonyachts.com/images21.htm (built or to be built by Meta I think).

Willallison

05-09-2006, 07:17 PM

fcfc - you are entirely correct about the 'power creep' that afflicts the production power boat world. We are in some ways a victim of our own technological advancement. With the legislated 'greening' of our powerplants, manufacturers have advanced the efficiency of the modern marine engine to a point that few would have considered possible even ten years ago.

The reality, as I've said before, is that the vast majority of people use their boats very little - or are at least underway for very little time. How often do you look at an advertised boat, three or four years old, with only 100 - 200 hours on the engine(s)? For these people, a boat that does 30 knots and offers apartment-like living, but can only manage 1 nmpg is a far more attractive option than a less lavish, 8 knot plodder that can do 10 nmpg.

Volume production manufacturer's naturally recognise this, so aim their boats squarely at the biggest market. Which effectively narrows our search for an economical powerboat to either niche builders - like Nordhavn - or custom builders. Which by their very nature are unlikely to be able to compete on it\nitial purchase price with the Oceanis that vega id trying to sell to his wife!;) :D

Vega

05-09-2006, 07:46 PM

The reality, as I've said before, is that the vast majority of people use their boats very little - or are at least underway for very little time. How often do you look at an advertised boat, three or four years old, with only 100 - 200 hours on the engine(s)? For these people, a boat that does 30 knots and offers apartment-like living, but can only manage 1 nmpg is a far more attractive option than a less lavish, 8 knot plodder that can do 10 nmpg.

Volume production manufacturer's naturally recognise this, so aim their boats squarely at the biggest market. Which effectively narrows our search for an economical powerboat to either niche builders - like Nordhavn - or custom builders. Which by their very nature are unlikely to be able to compete on it\nitial purchase price with the Oceanis that vega id trying to sell to his wife!;) :D

Of course, you are correct, but you should add that the market is so scarce in cruising motorboats, because sailors that want to cruise, chose cruising sailboats:D , as fcfc has already pointed out.

There is simply no competion from a powerboat where a sailboat is at its best. It would be a foolish marketing from the powerboat builders to try to do this.
...Competition sail/power only arises when you want both of worlds: say low draft, ease of handling, speed (powerboats wins) AND seaworthiness and very long range (sailboats wins)

About that talk about my wife, I will get back to it when I have time:mad: , but I should point out that I personally don't like the Oceannis, even if I consider that most cruiser sailors do. That's why I have chosen that boat. It is a typical cruising sailing boat, and contrary to the cruising motorboats, I could have chosen between dozens of them, I wonder why?:rolleyes:

Vega

05-09-2006, 07:48 PM

Thaks for the input (the boats). I will look at them later.;)

fcfc

05-10-2006, 05:40 AM

It is a typical cruising sailing boat, and contrary to the cruising motorboats, I could have chosen between dozens of them, I wonder why?:rolleyes:

People who typically sail choose that range. People who typically go power go to 28-32 ft power boats, two cabins, 18-20 kts cruise, week end use (at least in europe). You find in that range not only the antares 980 , but also both janneau merryfisher 925 and prestige 32, ACM elite 31, all this from main french builders. You also have rodman, nimbus, aquador etc ...

The croatian builder who produces the adria (a older model I think) produces also a 36 and 40 ft sailboats. Same range as oceanis/ cyclades 373 393. But also the vektor 950, something between antares 880 and 980 less luxury.

Another marketing point is that displacement powerboats are on the boring side. There no much to do aboard beyond looking the landscape. And even, you cannot be far offshore to see it and it does not change fast.

One can spend an afternoon sailing at 2 knots average around three buoys. I have done it, even slower, when no wind. But I have never seen powerboats owners to do the same (going at two knots or less around buoys) to see who makes best uses of his boat.

The correspondant use of powerboats would be fishing. But that need some speed to follow fishes and birds.

Milan

05-10-2006, 03:43 PM

It is possible to build offshore cruising motor boat for less money then a sailing boat of similar size. Principles to achieve that are established in a naval architecture long ago. Many older working boats from the times before modern high power / lightweight engines were built that way. If they are narrow for their length, kept simple, relatively light, low, (low windage), they will move with a little resistance at the displacement speeds. They can also heave simple and cheap steadying rig which can minimise rolling and help the engine a bit, as well as give back up in the case of mechanical failure. If built from a metal, it's quite easy to make them un- capsizeble - deckhouse with a strong, small windows and watertight hatches takes care of that.

It should look similar to the sardine carriers or old Dutch steel coast guard vessels

Guillermo

05-10-2006, 04:29 PM

What about the SteadySailer?
http://www.chuckpaine.com/zsteadysailer.html

"The Paine STEADYSAILER is a name we have coined for this new type of yacht. With that name, you'd expect her to be a motoryacht with a steadying sail, and she is certainly that. But she's also a whole lot more. She is the embodiment of the term Motorsailor. She is designed and optimized for motorsailing, which is what the majority of pure cruising sailboats do much of the time anyway. All experience sailors know what a huge difference in speed is made just by having the engine ticking over slowly when under sail, or the sails up and drawing when under power. The PAINE STEADYSAILER is intended to always have the engine running, so that the yacht travels at a given speed (say 10 knots) at ALL TIMES, no matter the state of the wind. Thus she will make good 240 nautical miles per day, or over 1000 statute miles every four days, no matter what. STEADY speed, rather than the presence of a steadying sail, is what gives this design its name."

Milan

05-10-2006, 04:45 PM

Yes, I think that Steady Sailor is very near to what we are talking about. She reminds me of William Hand's designs. Francis Herreshoff also designed a few interesting boats in this cathegory.

Vega

05-10-2006, 06:31 PM

It is possible to build offshore cruising motor boat for less money then a sailing boat of similar size. Principles to achieve that are established in a naval architecture long ago. ….If built from a metal, it's quite easy to make them un- capsizeble - deckhouse with a strong, small windows and watertight hatches takes care of that.
…..It should look similar to the sardine carriers or old Dutch steel coast guard vessels

Milan, welcome to this discussion.

You are right, it is possible to build a 40ft cruising motor boat for less money than a sailing boat of similar size. (We will restrict the discussion to this size, or to the size necessary to offer the same interior space of the Oceanis 39. After all we are concerned here with costs, and economical cruising. Not much sense into looking to bigger boats than the ones that are already comfortable cruising boats, and I am referring here to the Oceanis.)

But I don’t agree that you could have an offshore efficient cruising boat for less money (regarding fuel consumption) with the same interior space of the Oceanis 39.

The boat that you are describing (except in what concerns oceangoing characteristics) exists already in production. It has a slightly more powerful engine than the one that is necessary to travel at hull speed, but I am sure you can mount a less powerful motor on this boat.
I am talking about a Nigel Irens design and he says about it:

“This design primarily aims to satisfy the needs and desires of owners who have previously only owned sailing cruisers. To this end the idea is to replace the often noisy and bumpy 'sprint' approach to voyaging under power in a planing-hulled powerboat with a quieter and less frenetic approach to passage-making.

A realistic cruising speed is typically between about 13 and 15 knots, although the hull itself will still be efficent at speeds up to about 20 knots (15 knots requires about 80 hp of applied power.)”

This boat is produced by Seatec, a French company and the boat has been certified by the EU authorities as a class C boat, meaning that it is only intended for coastal traveling in semi-protected waters.

Besides, if you look at the interior space you will find that it is rather small, not by any means a match for the oceanis. It is quite easy to understand why: This boat has a beam of 3,3 m and the Oceanis has a 4,0 beam and that on a 12m boat are a lot of square meters.
For the same interior space you would have to go for the 14m boat (drawing) and that one will certainly cost a lot more than the Oceanis. Fact is that I am convinced that even the 40ft will cost a lot more than the Oceanis.

Of course that will probably be because the Oceanis is a mass produced boat and this one is not. But the truth is that you can buy the Oceanis with a lot less money that any production cruising motorboat of this type and sailors are not interested in what would be possible, but in what they can afford with their money.

(Guillermo, it was in this kind of boat that I was thinking when I said that for having the same interior space you would need a longer boat.)

About seaworthiness we have a design problem here, because to have lots of stability in a small boat you need lots of beam and that is no good for economy. All the oceangoing motorboats of this size are beamier boats.
The only other way to go is the one you described:

” If built from a metal, it's quite easy to make them un- capsizeble - deckhouse with a strong, small windows and watertight hatches takes care of that.”

And that description suits very well to some lifeguard boats. A boat like that would be very uncomfortable in heavy seas, but if built very strongly in metal with special windows and storm shutters, it would be a very seaworthy boat, but also a hugely expensive boat. Do you have an idea of the price of a lifeguard boat?

The boats you show in your post are all right, but they are huge, comparing with 40ft, and they have to be, to be seaworthy with a relatively small beam. That hull design is not really suitable to a small 40ft boat, if you want to have an offshore cruising boat.

http://www.nigelirens.demon.co.uk/FRAMEpower.htm
http://www.rangeboat.com/index.php
http://www.nigelirens.demon.co.uk/FRAMElaunch.htm

Vega

05-10-2006, 06:46 PM

What about the SteadySailer?
http://www.chuckpaine.com/zsteadysailer.html

"The Paine STEADYSAILER is a name we have coined for this new type of yacht. With that name, you'd expect her to be a motoryacht with a steadying sail, and she is certainly that. But she's also a whole lot more. She is the embodiment of the term Motorsailor. ."

Come on Guillermo, this is an interesting boat, but with a SAIL AREA of 831 sq.ft, It is not a motorboat, it is a motorsailor:D
And with 58ft it will be an expensive boat. Remember we are talking abot small budget cruising. (I am not considering 27ft boats yet), but one with 58ft is really out of the scope of this discussion about: economical cruising --sail boat versus motorboat on the 40ft range.
At least for me :p

Willallison

05-10-2006, 07:04 PM

I think you guys are still missing the point to some extent. We are not (necessarily) talking about budget cruising. Nor should we be restricting our search to boats around 40 feet. Nor should we only use the Oceanis as our example sailboat.
What we are attempting to examine - and I know I'm starting to sound like a recording! - is that it is not necessarily cheaper to operate a sailboat than an equivalently equipped power boat. Period.
The Dashew example has already demonstrated the point in one instance, so my original statement has already proved to be correct. However I agree that we should also examine the case for vessels of other sizes and types.
To this end, I've emailed PDQ: an American multihull manufacturer that produces both sail and powercats for their input. We'll have to wait to see if they reply....

btw - thanks for the Irens pics - whether they are pertinent to the discussion or not, they're lovely looking boats!:D

fcfc

05-11-2006, 04:54 AM

The rangetech is a picnic boat, not a cruise boat. I think the price is around 275000€. The competitor of the rangeboats id the andreyale 40. http://www.motorboating.com/motorboat/seatrials/article/0,12696,553628,00.html price a bit beyond an oceanis.

I saw on the net the price of the MLB74 (Motor Life Boats) listed as 1 250 000$.

But whatabout JMF 39 or tanton 247/ tameta (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2026/size/big/si/tameta/perpage/12 ) for a more readable view.

Both have about same length, same beam, same empty weigth as the oceanis. So about the same interior space. Both have twin engines volvo D2 75 saildrive. Both are more rugged than an oceanis. Built in strongall instead of fiberglass. Something like 10mm (3/8") thick AL for sides and 12 mm(1/2") for bottom.

For initial cost, an oceanis would have a rig / sails / deck hardware , ballast, and one d2-55. For theses powerboats, you only have 2 d2-75. The only problem is that the oceanis is "mass" produced if we can speak so. More automated production. and the powerboats are one off. The other point is that beneteau certainly have a good weigth when negotiating with sub contractors or suppliers.

For catamarans, excluded by vega, PDQ34 and fountaine pajot Highland 35 are on the expensive side. Also for marinas, they do not have the draft of a sailboat, but they do have beam. And both are on the heavy side with wide hulls for accomodations. I think to be power efficient, a catamaran MUST be LIGTH and have NARROW hulls. as :
http://www.tennantdesign.co.nz/boats.php?boat=39
http://www.stanyonmarine.com.au/pdfs/10M%20DART%20BROCHURE.pdf
Here, we are about half the weigth of PDQ34/Hihland 35, for about the same length/beam.

Tad

05-11-2006, 02:08 PM

Appears to be two conversations here, one on initial purchase price, the other on comparison of operating costs.

Dashew does not mention initial cost comparison but I would suspect that if you duplicated both boats (Beowulf and Windhorse) today, eliminating development costs, Beowulf would be more expensive. On operating cost it must be remembered that these two boats are the centerpieces in a large commercial operation, they are showboats and are used and maintained as such. Also note that if the usual half-wit stinkpotter :P got hold of the throttle on Windhorse, Steve's equation would be upside down in minutes. (Because the engines are only using half the fuel they could if bumped up to 2600 RPM.)

I.e. the comparison is only good in a narrow set of circumstances.

On moderate cost cruising powerboats;
My 2005 price comparison sheet shows
38' Mariner Double Cabin with 135HP $229k USD
39'9" Mainship 39 Trawler with 370HP at $244k USD
36' Mainship 34 with 240HP at $187k USD
41'8" Selene 36 with 210HP at $299k USD
39' Krogen 39 with 120HP at $425k USD
38'6" Integrity 386ES with 225HP at $292k USD

In looking at the used market (Yachtworld) I find many full displacement Taiwanese built "trawler yachts" in the 30'-40' range available at from $75k to $150k USD. There are hundreds of similar sized cruising sailboats (Production fiberglass) 15-30 years old, available for about half the cost of similar length powerboats. Generally I am looking at North America.

All the best, Tad

Vega

05-11-2006, 05:44 PM

We are not (necessarily) talking about budget cruising. What we are attempting to examine - and I know I'm starting to sound like a recording! - is that it is not necessarily cheaper to operate a sailboat than an equivalently equipped power boat. Period.

Yes, we are talking only about budget cruising and this thread is only about that.

When you replied to Fred saying that: “It's a mistake to think that buying a sailboat will save you money” you were referring to budget cruising, or putting it in Fred’s words, about the -“hard working family who wants to cruise and save their bucks while doing so”.

Let’s put that sentence of yours in the right context:

we're looking more toward the hard working family who wants to cruise and save their bucks while doing so.
The std choice for 5000 years has been the sailboat.
Many Many circumnavigations have been done in quite small boats that are very inexpensive.
…..
Free power (the breeze) makes the most sense if distance is a requirement with low bucks.
FAST FRED

Free power (the breeze) makes the most sense if distance is a requirement with low bucks.

Fred -
It's a mistake to think that buying a sailboat will save you money. Many times I've seen the results of studies that show that a full displacement power boat is indeed less costly to buy and own.

So, we are talking about “low bucks”.

Nor should we be restricting our search to boats around 40 feet. Nor should we only use the Oceanis as our example sailboat.

About this I agree. The Oceanis 39 is the upper end of the budget cruising.

Perhaps we should consider a substantially less expensive boat like the new Bavaria 37 or the Harmony 38, both oceangoing boats (class A) and suitable to cruise in comfort.
Perhaps these two were more adequate to low budget cruising, but I have thought that it is more difficult for a 38ft motorboat to be seaworthy and inexpensive and that’s why I have suggested the Oceanis. It seems fairer to me…but if you, or the other guys, want to make a suggestion, I am listening.

http://www.bavaria-yachtbau.com/bavaria_e.php?nav=boot&boot_id=12

http://www.poncinyachts.com/Poncin/Poncinyachts.nsf/VuSitesStatiquesW/Poncin_Yachts_Voiliers_Harmony_Harmony_38!OpenDocument&Langue=En&YTabProduit=A

What we are attempting to examine - and I know I'm starting to sound like a recording! - is that it is not necessarily cheaper to operate a sailboat than an equivalently equipped power boat.
The Dashew example has already demonstrated the point in one instance, so my original statement has already proved to be correctTo

Believe me will, I am not trying to prove anything nor trying to justify my options (for me, pleasure comes first, second, pleasure and third – Can I afford it?, nothing rational here).

I am just curious about it. Anyway I have already told you that it seems completely pointless to me to try to see which of two multimillion dollar boats is more economical, regarding its propulsion or style, sailboat or motorboat.
In a thread about “low bucks cruising” it is completely out of order.

But, as I have pointed out to you, the only thing shown in that comparison made by Mr Dashew is that he did not make his calculations well.

I have shown to you, using the same proportions he has used, that his motorboat, cruising in Europe, will be already 12% more expensive.

He obviously didn’t consider the inevitable rise of fuel prices in his calculations. If he had done that and had calculated the cost over a 10 or 15 years period, regarding also fuel price, as he has done to the replacement of sails and engines, he would not be able to say how much more the motorboat would be more expensive, but it would be without any doubt substantially more expensive to own.

Rather strange concern I would say. If you have the money for an 80ft multimillion luxury boat, you should not be concerned about cruising costs:rolleyes:

Vega

05-11-2006, 05:55 PM

I.e. the comparison is only good in a narrow set of circumstances.

Welcome to the thread Tad and thanks for the imput.
I agree with you.
I am going to look at those boats.

Best regards

Paulo

Willallison

05-11-2006, 07:12 PM

Tad - always nice to have your experienced input - welcome to the discussion. Of the boats that you list, really only the Mariner and Krogen would really be considered as displacement cruisers. I don't mean that the others weren't originally intended that way, but they are all massively overpowered to achieve displacement speeds. It demonstrates just how difficult it is to find sesnsible examples of production displacement boats.

Vega - sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Trust me - I know what I was referring to when I said that it's not always cheaper to own and operate a sailboat. If I had meant that it's cheaper to have a budget sailboat than a budget powerboat, then I would have said so. Regardless of the context of Fred's post, that's NOT what I meant.

I also find it difficult to see how you can extrapolate from Dashew's comparison to say the boat would be 12% more expensive to operate in Europe, given that you (or I) don't know all the parameters (and the weight given to them) that he used to arrive at his numbers. Now you may well be correct - it may indeed cost more to operate the powerboat in Europe, but it still doesn't alter the fact that under the circumstances in which he will operate the boat it will be less expensive than their equivalent sailboat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not against sailboats. At the end of the day, you choose a sailboat because you like sailing, and a powerboat because you enjoy power cruising. You buy within your desired genre the boat that you can afford...

Vega

05-11-2006, 07:15 PM

The rangetech is a picnic boat, not a cruise boat. I think the price is around 275000€. The competitor of the rangeboats id the andreyale 40. http://www.motorboating.com/motorboat/seatrials/article/0,12696,553628,00.html price a bit beyond an oceanis.

Hum, I don't agree with you. That boat, like the Andreyale is not an oceangoing boat, but in semi-protected waters they can cruise in style. They have not the interior space of a 40ft sailing boat, but for a couple they are alright and have a very nice outside space. For having the same interior space of the Oceanis (for two couples) you would have to go for the bigger boat and the big bucks, but the Adreyale 15 m is beautiful, much nicer than the 12m.

I have to say that the Oceanis doesn't come close in style.

They have an Interesting fuel consumption and a nice speed for few bucks, at least comparing with other motorboats.

“ The new Andreyale 40 from French boat builder Latitude 46 takes its styling cues from the classic American commuter yachts of the ’20s and ’30s, but draws on modern construction methods….
the semi-displacement hull is made of hand laid-up fiberglass, as is the deck, and its plumb bow and slight flare are built to shoulder through heavy coastal seas.
I took the wheel in Fisher’s Island Sound off Noank, Conn. The 40 turned easily in its own length, and the twin three-blade props provided plenty of bite. Once on plane, I found the boat had a couple of sweet spots on the acceleration curve: one at 1500 rpm (7.3 knots) and another at 3000 rpm (14.3 knots). According to Rodgers, the 40 gets 2 mpg at 15 knots for an approximate range of 264 nautical miles.
I don’t think I’d want to cruise extensively in this boat with more than two people aboard. But as a couple’s gift to themselves after years of hard work, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more romantic retirement than chasing the horizon on board the Andreyale 40.”

From a test published in Motorboating Magazine, link posted by fcfc
http://www.motorboating.com/motorboat/seatrials/article/0,12696,553628,00.html

Milan

05-11-2006, 08:45 PM

"…welcome to this discussion…"

Thanks Paulo. I was very busy last couple of months, didn't have the time to take part in the forum discussions, although I saw quite a few interesting themes.

Talking about economical power boat, I think we should first identify few basic principles that are necessary for economical powering. First, boat should be cheap to build - it means using economical material and fast and simple building method. As this would be an offshore cruiser, seaworthiness and basic structural strength are priorities. She must be low resistance, easy driving type hull, for reasonable average speed with a small engine. => I think that the best way to achieve this goals is to build her in steel, one or two chines, one engine, one shaft, flatfish mid section, narrow. (length / beam at least 1 / 4, better 1 / 5).

Prices of the sailing boats versus power boats: the cheapest possible boat is a sailing boat, (if you go back to the basics), forgo the engine, use the tree for the mast, make your self sails from the rice sacks, and connect them to the mast with pieces of rope. But modern sailing boats are very different. They now heave very powerful engines and mast, rigging and sails cost around 30% of the total price of the boat. Suppose that powerboat is made for the same pile of money as Oceanis - Get rid of the ballast and fin => lighter boat, less wetted area. Get rid of the mast and rigging - less windage and saving of 30%. (Steadying sails will be necessary but it would cost tiny fraction of proper rig. Squeeze the hull in the middle from 4 m to 3 m. Stretch the hull length to the 15 m. Engine can be same as for the Oceanis, and power boat will motor faster and consume less fuel then Oceanis.

"…that description suits very well to some lifeguard boats. A boat like that would be very uncomfortable in heavy seas, but if built very strongly in metal with special windows and storm shutters, it would be a very seaworthy boat, but also a hugely expensive boat. Do you have an idea of the price of a lifeguard boat?

…they are huge, comparing with 40ft, and they have to be, to be seaworthy with a relatively small beam. That hull design is not really suitable to a small 40ft boat, if you want to have an offshore cruising boat…"

I don't think that boat like that have to have uncomfortable motion in the waves. You probably think that because narrow boat doesn't have a lot of form stability. But motion is influenced by other factors as well - flatfish mid section, and steadying sails will help considerably. If that's not enough maybe some water ballast thanks on the sides for controlling quickens of the rolling.

Why you think that such boat should be expensive? Real lifeguard boats are expensive, especially modern fast ones, because they use huge engines and lot of special equipment and such. But I'm talking about previous generation of boats designed for moderate displacement speed. There is nothing particularly expensive in their basic concept. Strength comes naturally to the steel boat, you don't need special expensive tricks. If kept small, windows don't have to be very special to resist force of water if hit by the wave. Storm-proof hatches are also easy to execute in metal. I agree about the length, she heave to be considerably longer then 40 ft, I think around 50ft. But length is not good comparison, volume or displacement is better and price is the best. Length alone is cheap, it's just a little bit more hull material, expensive stuff stays the same.

I think that it can be done. Other question all together is who would want such a boat. I don't think that motor boaters would like her. She would probably appeal more to the sailors, but sailors want to sail. I'm into sailing myself and motoring looks pretty boring to me, although, I acknowledge that there is something to be sad for the boat for long passages which can keep constant cruising speed of around 8 - 9 knots, day and night, running or biting, crew worm, dry and comfortable. But then again, is it a fun to cross the ocean without being wet, tired and miserable? I shall stick to the sails.

It's getting really late here, I have to stop. Tomrow, I'll go to sail for a few days. I'll be back at Tusday, hope to elaborate further on this.

Best regards,

Milan

Willallison

05-11-2006, 10:31 PM

Tad brought up the subject of 2nd hand boats, and it got me thinking about the boats that my family owns.
My parents have an Offshore 48, which is a semi-displacement power boat - and a very poor example of economical boating!:D
My sister now operates the 1976 36ft CheoyLee that my parents used to have. She's a displacement cruiser with a pair 120hp Leihman diesels. She too is somewhat overpowered (the boat was originally designed to have a single Leihman), but is otherwise an excellent cruiser. She carries 3 1/2 tons of fuel and 2 1/2 tons of water. Running on one motor, the boat gets about 4 nmpg.

My brother-in-law is a dedicated sailor and has a 40ft Adams. She's not as well fitted out as the Cheoy Lee, nor does she have anything like the interior volume, in spite of being a reasonably beamy boat. I can't remember exactly what motor she has, but it's around 40hp. She's also a little younger, but by the time he's finished with a fairly extensive re-fit the two boats should be worth about the same amount of money - about 150K AUD.

Tasmania is blessed with some of the best cruising grounds in the world, and we use our boats at least as much as other people here do. Yet on average we put only about 100hrs on the motor(s) per year. That equates to approximately 200 gallons, or 900 litres of fuel. at about $1.50 per litre, thats $1800 per year.
The sailboat averages 7 nmpg at 7 knots and he puts on about 50 hrs each year. That equates to about $350 per year in fuel, so he's $1450 ahead on fuel costs.
Only the powerboat is kept in a marina, but if both were, the extra length would cost the sailboat about $200 extra each year.

We can very reliably expect to get over 10,000 hrs out of the diesels before they require any major work. We pulled them apart after 2000 hrs and simply bolted them back together as they were as good as new. On that basis we wouldn't expect to perform anything much other than routine maintenance for at least another 7000 hrs - or 70 years!!! Assume about $500 each year for that.
The little diesel in the sailboat is more highly stressed and as such is likely to require more work, even though it operates less. But let's assume that it too requires no major work - probably costing about $200 each year.
Antifouling, insurance and other general maintenance costs for the two boats should be about the same.
Sails for the yacht cost about $20,000 and will require replacing about every 10 years. Sheets etc need replacing about every 3 years and cost about $1000.

So, over the next 10 years, fuel and engine maintenance will cost about $23,000 for the 36ft displacement powerboat. Fuel, engine maintenance, extra marina fees, replacement sails etc for the sailboat will cost about $30,500.

Now this is a very bare-bones comparison, but unless I've mistakenly left something major out, it clearly demonstrates my point once again. I've intentionally ignored depreciation, as these boats are both 20+ years old it will probably be afflicted on their owners at about the same rate...
Sure - fuel costs will rise, but so will everything else and without the benefit of knowing the future it is only sensible to conduct the comparisons based on todays prices. Equally, If we were to suddenly decide to circumnavigate Australia the fuel cost for the powerboat might soon narrow the gap. But you could still travel an extra 4000nm before the costs would become the same (and that's without taking into account any extra engine hrs on the sailboat).

Guillermo

05-12-2006, 01:39 AM

...Remember we are talking abot small budget cruising...
Well, this is your thread, of course, but let me point out some personal thoughts.

First, I don't like the Oceanis range of boats. I find them the kind of impersonal, egg-marina-style, internal volume oriented (beamy and high freeboard), good weather island-hoppers, mass production boats. Not really serious cruisers, in my humble opinion. Neither I like Bavarias.

Having expressed this rude opinion, I have to say it doesn't seems fair to me to compare motor boats and sailing boats fixing length, and then compare living area. I think it is more fair to fix living area and then find the equivalent length for a single decked efficient motor boat, if that's what you pretend.

For short good weather trips, yes, conmmuter style motor boats can be a very nice alternative to sailing boats, specially when you're getting old. But you'll pay more at marinas because of the increased lenght...An strong reason to go trawlers....

For all around cruising, I stubborngly believe well conceived sail-efficient motorsailers are the answer to economic and safe all around cruising.

The SteadySailer is a nice mix between displacement conmuters and sailing boats, thus providing the safety of auxiliary sails, making her able for long distance cruising. The concept can be downsized, absolutely, and deserves to be considered as an alternative.

Willallison

05-12-2006, 02:08 AM

For all around cruising, I stubborngly believe well conceived sail-efficient motorsailers are the answer to economic and safe all around cruising.

On this I think we would agree:D so long as you enjoy sailing and don't mind tripping over all the crap that litters the decks of sailboats ;)

One of my personal favourites (though definitely more sail oriented than motor) is the Buizzen 48

http://www.cys.com.au/buizen/48/index.htm

FAST FRED

05-12-2006, 05:53 AM

fcfc

05-12-2006, 06:13 AM

do not confuse motoring and use.

Someone starting saturday motoring 4 hours to next anchorage, staying the nigth, and back on sunday will be motoring 8 hours, but uses the boat 30 to 36 hours.

Same for voyaging and cruise. Whatabout the guy who sail 2 or 3 days an ocean part, then stay at place a month or so nether sailing for more than 2 hours, and perhaps staying anchored at the same place a full week.

Another point for willalison, sails can be changed about 10 years, but nothing prevents you to keep them for any reason twelve years or more. the sailboat will still sail. perhaps not optimally, but will sail. A powerboat with an empty tank will not go very far.

Guillermo

05-12-2006, 12:18 PM

....Perhaps we can use CRUISING as the term for coastal craft that just do occasional trips ,
and VOYAGING for the boats that need longer ocean worthy legs?...
Interesting proposition.
Maybe another posibility is COASTING and VOYAGING, being CRUISING a general term.

Willallison,
Nice boat, the Buizen 48. I didn't know it. Thanks for the info.

Following Paulo's posts on conmuters, what about this 44 from Parker Marine?
http://www.parker-marine.com/com44page.htm

Vega

05-12-2006, 01:01 PM

Following Paulo's posts on conmuters, what about this 44 from Parker Marine?
http://www.parker-marine.com/com44page.htm

Guillermo, nice boat (I have posted that one on the post 10 of this thread:P )

For all the others and for you too: God work guys, lots of interesting stuff,

I am working, I will get back when I finish with this.

Vega

05-12-2006, 03:50 PM

[COLOR="blue"]"…
Talking about economical power boat, I think we should first identify few basic principles that are necessary for economical powering. First, boat should be cheap to build ...

Why you think that such boat should be expensive? ... Strength comes naturally to the steel boat, you don't need special expensive tricks. If kept small, windows don't have to be very special to resist force of water if hit by the wave. Storm-proof hatches are also easy to execute in metal. I agree about the length, she heave to be considerably longer then 40 ft, I think around 50ft. But length is not good comparison, volume or displacement is better and price is the best. Length alone is cheap, it's just a little bit more hull material, expensive stuff stays the same.

I think that it can be done. Other question all together is who would want such a boat. I don't think that motor boaters would like her. She would probably appeal more to the sailors, but sailors want to sail.

Milan, that’s not about building a boat.

This thread is about “Low Budget cruising” but it is also about the typical boat owner and about what the market has to offer.

Typical boat owner does not make his own boat, he buys a used one or goes to a boat show and buys a brand new one.

If there is a need in the market, then there is a boat ore several boats for that market niche. If that kind of boat does not exist in the market, then it is pointless to make one, because that means that kind of boat has no real interest, except to some very few and particular guys.

He could go for the second hand boat, but it is very tricky to make comparisons about 2nd hand boats, because prices can vary a lot. Besides this it is also a kind of search about what offer has the world market nowadays about low cost, low maintenance cruising motorboats.

And it is about comparing one, or several motorboats, between the best choices regarding economy, with a typical low budget cruising sailing boat and find out about the differences in global budget for several annual cruising mileage:

(initial price-resale value after 10 years + maintenance costs + fuel costs)

So, if you can find this kind of boat in the market (new) that suits these criteria, please post them.

About steel boats (market new boats), my experience tells me that they are a lot more expensive than fiberglass boats. They are also heavier and need bigger motors, but please give it a try. Holland is a good place to find them.

About the lack of appeal to this kind of boat to motorboaters, well, I believe that there are among them some rare sailors, and that this kind of boat would appeal to them.

Fact is that we have found some motorboats in the market that fit the bill, regarding economical cruising. So I guess it is not an endangered species, and with the price of fuel going up, I believe these boats will be more popular in the future.

Regards,

Paulo

fcfc

05-12-2006, 04:55 PM

A Motorboat like this one could be an option even if not as seaworthy as the oceanis.
http://www.parker-marine.com/desccom44.html

Does anybody know any boat manufacturer that has in his range a boat like this?

What catch me in this boat is its weigth.
10000 lbs = 4.5 t, twin yanmar 125 hp included. (4jh3 dte is 125 hp 86 kW, dry weigth 260 kg 560 lbs).

That leave about 4 T (8800 lbs) for the complete hull and all arrangement for 13m lwl (42"8).

That is on the very light side. an oceanis 393 (wider, but 3 ft shorter) weigths without ballast 6 t (13000 lbs). Lighter than an andreyale 40 or rangeboat too. Although both have the same beam and shorter.

A similar powerboat (about same length, same beam, same weigth) is http://www.georgebuehler.com/Pilgrim.html . But this later looks very light, and even with a 10 - 20 hp engine and flat bottom , it is nearly 10 % heavier. (Listed as 10,941 lbs ).

Vega

05-12-2006, 06:04 PM

I also find it difficult to see how you can extrapolate from Dashew's comparison to say the boat would be 12% more expensive to operate in Europe, given that you (or I) don't know all the parameters (and the weight given to them) that he used to arrive at his numbers. Now you may well be correct - it may indeed cost more to operate the powerboat in Europe, but it still doesn't alter the fact that under the circumstances in which he will operate the boat it will be less expensive than their equivalent sailboat.

.

It is all right, not a problem Willallison, but Fred was talking about “Low Budget cruising” and I am talking about that too.

That’s what this thread is about.

About the 12%, it is not difficult. He gave you two different prices of fuel, maintained all the parameters and has said how much they modify the % of cost between sail boat and motorboat. Extrapolating from that you can find what will happen with any fuel price regarding % of costs between both boats , maintaining all other parameters ( I don’t need to know what they are) .

What I was saying is that he has obviously calculated the operating costs for both boats for a long period of time (he talks about changing the gearbox) but disregarded the sharp rise on fuel price.
I mean, 15 years from now, the proportion between the rise of prices (do to the inflation) in the cost of the rig or the sails, on one side, and the engines, on the other side, would be the same.
But regarding the fuel, it is going to rise a lot more than the inflation, say 50% if you are lucky. He obviously didn’t consider this in his calculations.
If he had done that, the outcome would have been very much the opposite.

Vega

05-12-2006, 06:07 PM

Vega - sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Trust me - I know what I was referring to when I said that it's not always cheaper to own and operate a sailboat. If I had meant that it's cheaper to have a budget sailboat than a budget powerboat, then I would have said so. Regardless of the context of Fred's post, that's NOT what I meant.

I also find it difficult to see how you can extrapolate from Dashew's comparison to say the boat would be 12% more expensive to operate in Europe, given that you (or I) don't know all the parameters (and the weight given to them) that he used to arrive at his numbers. Now you may well be correct - it may indeed cost more to operate the powerboat in Europe, but it still doesn't alter the fact that under the circumstances in which he will operate the boat it will be less expensive than their equivalent sailboat.

It is all right, not a problem Willallison, but Fred was talking about “Low Budget cruising” and I am talking about that too.

That’s what this thread is about.

About the 12%, it is not difficult. He gave you two different prices of fuel, maintained all the parameters and has said how much they modify the % of cost between sail boat and motorboat. Extrapolating from that you can find what will happen with any fuel price regarding % of costs between both boats , maintaining all other parameters ( I don’t need to know what they are) .

What I was saying is that he has obviously calculated the operating costs for both boats for a long period of time (he talks about changing the gearbox) but disregarded the sharp rise on fuel price.
I mean, 15 years from now, the proportion between the rise of prices (do to the inflation) in the cost of the rig or the sails, on one side, and the engines, on the other side, would be the same.
But regarding the fuel, it is going to rise a lot more than the inflation, say 50% if you are lucky. He obviously didn’t consider this in his calculations.
If he had done that, the outcome would have been very much the opposite.

Vega

05-12-2006, 06:10 PM

Vega - sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Trust me - I know what I was referring to when I said that it's not always cheaper to own and operate a sailboat. If I had meant that it's cheaper to have a budget sailboat than a budget powerboat, then I would have said so. Regardless of the context of Fred's post, that's NOT what I meant.

I also find it difficult to see how you can extrapolate from Dashew's comparison to say the boat would be 12% more expensive to operate in Europe, given that you (or I) don't know all the parameters (and the weight given to them) that he used to arrive at his numbers. Now you may well be correct - it may indeed cost more to operate the powerboat in Europe, but it still doesn't alter the fact that under the circumstances in which he will operate the boat it will be less expensive than their equivalent sailboat.

...

It is all right, not a problem Willallison, but Fred was talking about “Low Budget cruising” and I am talking about that too.

That’s what this thread is about.

About the 12%, it is not difficult. He gave you two different prices of fuel, maintained all the parameters and has said how much they modify the % of cost between sail boat and motorboat. Extrapolating from that you can find what will happen with any fuel price regarding % of costs between both boats , maintaining all other parameters ( I don’t need to know what they are) .

What I was saying is that he has obviously calculated the operating costs for both boats for a long period of time (he talks about changing the gearbox) but disregarded the sharp rise on fuel price.
I mean, 15 years from now, the proportion between the rise of prices (do to the inflation) in the cost of the rig or the sails, on one side, and the engines, on the other side, would be the same.
But regarding the fuel, it is going to rise a lot more than the inflation, say 50% if you are lucky. He obviously didn’t consider this in his calculations.
If he had done that, the outcome would have been very much the opposite.

Vega

05-12-2006, 06:23 PM

First, I don't like the Oceanis range of boats. I find them the kind of impersonal, egg-marina-style, internal volume oriented (beamy and high freeboard), good weather island-hoppers, mass production boats. Not really serious cruisers, in my humble opinion. Neither I like Bavarias.

Well, I also don’t like them, but you are wrong, these are the typical low budget cruiser boats, and it is not me who is stating that, it is the market.

When I talk about cruising, it is again not about the very few people that make passages, but the 97% that cruise along the coast or do the Island-hops as you call it. Fact is that cruising is not about being a month in the middle of nowhere (that’s passage-making) but about enjoying life, on the move, along some beautiful shores, somewhere.

And for that, and considering low price, you can not find a better boat than the Oceanis, Bavarias and the lot. That’s the reason they sell thousands of them.

And, as we are talking here about Low budget Cruising sail boats, that’s the ones that matter for this discussion.

But regarding those that you call Serious cruisers, go and have a look at which is the boat that has more entries in the Atlantic Rally Crossing....surprise, surprise.

I think it is more fair to fix living area and then find the equivalent length for a single decked efficient motor boat, if that's what you pretend.

Yes, it is what I have been saying.

For short good weather trips, yes, commuter style motor boats can be a very nice alternative to sailing boats, especially when you're getting old. But you'll pay more at marinas because of the increased lenght...An strong reason to go trawlers....

For all around cruising, I stubborngly believe well conceived sail-efficient motorsailers are the answer to economic and safe all around cruising.

About Motorsailors, they are out of this thread. This one is about sailboats and motorboats.

Not that I have anything against, on the contrary, but, as Tad has put it “the comparison is only good in a narrow set of circumstances” and what we are comparing is cruising sailboats and motorboats of about 40ft, a little more, a little less, depending on interior space.

About trawlers we will see about it, but I have my doubts. For coastal cruising, commuter style boats can do a lot more speed, at the same Gallon/mile average, comparing with trawlers. They are a lot more heavy and probably more expensive.

I don’t think that Marina differences are very important in this case. In most marinas you pay also for beam and in some others for the area of the boat, so in the end it would not be a big deal, I guess.

I don’t get that connection between Commuter style boat and old guys. They make me think of beautiful ladies and style...I kind like it, I mean, both.:rolleyes:

With motorboat cats Marina price differences can be a very substantial % in total operating costs, but Cats also have advantages. So if someone is interested we can have a look at them too.

Vega

05-12-2006, 06:58 PM

The problem here is CRUISING has not been defined.

To some a "Cruise" is a trip across the sea , or any small ocean.

To others is the "Cruising Season" is 100 hours of use per year.

Just as a day sailor has different goals , and Co$ts ,

So does CRUISING , have a variety of meanings.

Perhaps we can use CRUISING as the term for coastal craft that just do occasional trips ,
and VOYAGING for the boats that need longer ocean worthy legs?

FAST FRED

Yes, let’s define cruising, at least for this thread

I don’t see how crossing oceans can be called cruising. That’s passage making.
Cruising is going along some nice shore, stopping for a bath, to visit a nice village or a wilderness.
That’s why the nice coasts are called cruising grounds.

Sometimes you need to do a passage to reach some cruising grounds, sometimes you don’t.

Sometimes you have just to do some small offshore passage and that is all.

The term exists also regarding car travel (and I like that too). When you cruise you are not doing some big non stop voyage, you are enjoying yourself along the countryside, taking your time and stopping at the nice places. It is the same with a boat.

So, we are considering here not necessarily passage makers, but also coastal cruising boats with some offshore capacity.

Guillermo

05-13-2006, 01:18 AM

Well, I also don’t like them, but you are wrong, these are the typical low budget cruiser boats, and it is not me who is stating that, it is the market.
No, I'm afraid I'm not wrong. That's precisely why I don't like them. I've inspected some of those when accidents happen, and I find they are cheapily built and conceived just to be sold to people who don't understand much about boats. As the owner of a very successful Galician boatyard (selling thousands of units a year the world around) told me: "What sells are nice varnished interiors and glooming hull surfaces, not well engineered boats"

When I talk about cruising, it is again not about the very few people that make passages, but the 97% that cruise along the coast or do the Island-hops as you call it. Fact is that cruising is not about being a month in the middle of nowhere (that’s passage-making) but about enjoying life, on the move, along some beautiful shores, somewhere.
And for that, and considering low price, you can not find a better boat than the Oceanis, Bavarias and the lot. That’s the reason they sell thousands of them....
And that's why I've mostly inspected these kind of boats when in accidents :rolleyes: . I do not remember to have done this for a properly built one, except those having been collisioned by a third, or the like....:eek:

Typical eggy-sailboat owner (with some nice exceptions) is a guy with some freedom thoughts in mind, but really with little time to fulfill his dream of a globetrotting cruising (including ocean crossings), because of his very busy work. He's bred in local sailing dinghies and then club cruisers regattas, so he still has the good taste of not going for fast eggy-motorboats, thanks God, as is the option for people without a sailing background (most of them).

So, he marries and gets small children and realizes all he can really do is some weekend sailing with family and maybe some club regattas with friends (this last only when friends are still young and do not get their own families). And because he has certain money and social position, he cannot either buy an old junky, sturdy boat, because of the public image of himself at the marina. But, on the other hand, he cannot afford to go into the expensive side of the market and buy a same sized properly built boat. So he goes for those cheaper nice-looking eggy-cruisers bred in racers, with big interior spaces and high freeboards. And that's why there are lots of those.

And this guy, in many ocasions having really little time to take care of his boat, leaving this task to local workshops without enough knowledge or skilled personnel, try to fulfill his dream from time to time, going out for some vacation cruising, including some short passages when the weather is gentle, or even ocean crossings looking for warmer waters. But sea and weather follow their own laws and tend to provide some disagreeable surprises, even in coastal waters and tradewind ocean crossings. And then is when the lack of a proper boat brings some serious consequences. To be fair, much less of what could happen, because, mercifully, there exists a legion of angels taking care of boatowners and their crews....;)

About Motorsailors, they are out of this thread...
Why? I don't understand your position. When you talk sailing boats you mean they should have no engine?

Vega

05-13-2006, 09:09 AM

Why? I don't understand your position. When you talk sailing boats you mean they should have no engine?

Guillermo, shame on you. After so many formulas and definitions it looks like you can not yet define what a motor-sailor is.:P

I have no pretension of doing that, but in this thread, considering production boats, a sail boat is a boat that has an engine that is not big enough to make it a motor-sailor.:D

Seriously, as an Architect I am fed up with some other architects’ idea that they are the ones that know what people should want as a house. I don’t care the least; I am only interested in what people want as a house. See, I assume that they are not stupid and they know what they want, even if for me, I would make it different.

That’s the market, and the market rules, and boat owners are not stupid because they don’t share your opinion.

As I have said to you once, it is not me or you who says what a motorsail is or a sailing boat, a cruising boat, a cruiser racer or a passage-maker.

It is the market and the specialized press.

I am not talking here about passage-makers. Those are not budget boats, and for those the press will name boats like the Rassy, Najad, Contest, Passport, Island Packet etc.

But for all the specialized press all around the world, the typical budget oceangoing cruiser (between 39 and 45ft) are the Oceanis, the Bavarias, the Hunters and the like.

And here, in this thread, we are talking just about that : The typical market production budget sailboat cruiser, meaning the kind of boat sailors with tight budgets are buying to do that, not about your opinion, or mine.

Independently of our opinions about them, they are the typical low budget cruisers and they will remain as so in this thread.

PS. If you want to open a new thread to discuss what a sailboat budget cruiser should be I will gladly participate. It will be interesting.

Guillermo

05-13-2006, 10:01 AM

OK, Paulo. It's your thread...
Following your thoughts, I think it is more fair to compare eggy-sailing boats with eggy-motorboats, instead of well conceived and engineered motor ones.
So, I suggest you to consider popular motor cruisers from Bayliner, Chaparral, Cruisers Yachts, Formula Boats, and the like :P

Vega

05-13-2006, 01:02 PM

My sister now operates the 1976 36ft CheoyLee that my parents used to have. She's a displacement cruiser with a pair 120hp Leihman diesels. She too is somewhat overpowered (the boat was originally designed to have a single Leihman), but is otherwise an excellent cruiser. She carries 3 1/2 tons of fuel and 2 1/2 tons of water. Running on one motor, the boat gets about 4 nmpg.

My brother-in-law is a dedicated sailor and has a 40ft Adams. She's not as well fitted out as the Cheoy Lee, nor does she have anything like the interior volume, in spite of being a reasonably beamy boat. I can't remember exactly what motor she has, but it's around 40hp. She's also a little younger, but by the time he's finished with a fairly extensive re-fit the two boats should be worth about the same amount of money - about 150K AUD.

Yet on average we put only about 100hrs on the motor(s) per year. That equates to approximately 200 gallons, or 900 litres of fuel. at about $1.50 per litre, thats $1800 per year.
The sailboat averages 7 nmpg at 7 knots and he puts on about 50 hrs each year. That equates to about $350 per year in fuel, so he's $1450 ahead on fuel costs.
Only the powerboat is kept in a marina, but if both were, the extra length would cost the sailboat about $200 extra each year.
…………
Now this is a very bare-bones comparison,.

Willallison, I have said that it was a lot easier to do that comparison with new production boats, taking into account what the market has to offer nowadays.

You have chosen otherwise and there is no reason why we should not have a look at it, but not like that, not in a” very bare-bones comparison”.
Like that, it means nothing and leads nowhere.

First, let’s introduce the boats:

I can only have internet photos, and could not find the interior layout of the Cheoylee 36.So if you can post real photos would be interesting, as it would be very interesting to hear what your brother-in-law thinks about your calculations.

The Cheoylee, is a fiberglass boat built in 1976 and it seems to me that it has a nice interior, caravan type, with really huge windows everywhere and lots of light, but I have only seen one cabin. Is that so?
About this boat you seem to imply that the 2x120hp engines are an exception, but for what I have seen in the used market, it is more the norm. Sure, I could find some versions with smaller engines on the used market, but because they have only one engine, they are offered at very low prices, compared with the ones that have your set-up.

The 40ft Adams are Passagemakers, fast and seaworthy boats, but, because they are not production boats, they can vary widely (and that’s why this discussion should be about production boats) :

“Adams 40 centre Cockpit, Aft Cockpit, Version 2:

Designed as centre cockpit, aft cockpit and the version 2 with the extended dog-house arrangements and various keels including full length, shoal draft with skeg hung rudder, centre-board, and fin.
This boat has been drawn for steel construction either round bilge or multi chine but can be built in aluminium, fiberglass foam/sandwich, plywood or timber.”http://www.adamsyachtdesign.com/page3.html

And of course the quality of the interior, to be fit to this comparison, should be of very good quality, to compare with the Cheoylee, what seems not to be the case.

This boat, opposite to the Cheoylee, has always at least two cabins, with sometimes a third cabin or at least an additional bunk.

So it is unfair to say that the cheoylee has a lot more space, it seems to me that if that boat can compensate in interior area its smaller length (due to the caravan type of his set-up), fact is that it has less cabins and if the quality of the interior is better it is just because the other is not a production boat and it looks that its interior is not of very good quality.
It could be otherwise, so, let’s consider different kinds of interior space, but comparable in a way. Fair enough?

So let’s proceed with some indispensable questions to go on with this comparison:

1 -What is the Adams version, the one with a dog-house or the traditional one? Hull material, boat year of building?

2 – What is the mileage that the sail boat has covered in the cruising season?

We know that the engine has worked 50hours in a season, but because it is a good sailboat, it could have sailed around the world with those 50 hours of engine use. :D

What is important regarding fuel cost while cruising is the fuel cost/mile, for the same total mileage (cruising season), taking into account that the motorboat is always wasting fuel while travelling and that the sailboat, when sailing, is wasting nothing and when motorsailing is wasting about half of what it wastes going only on the engine.

We can then use those data for calculating, as I had previously proposed, fuel costs for different types of use, different cruising mileages/year . I have suggested:

I will say four mileages/year: 500 miles/year, 1500 miles/year, 5000 miles/year and 10 000 miles a year.

And these proposal is applicable to the mileage you typically do for season, but if you want we can also calculate costs to 750 and a 1000m/year.

Of course, I can use the data I have gathered with the use of my sailboat while cruising, but as the Adams is a better sailboat and almost certainly your brother in law is a less “hurried” sailor than me, he probably uses less his engine and sails a lot more.

3- The Cheoylee is a rather heavy boat with a short waterline. You only say that the boat can average 4m/G but you don’t say at what speed. Can I assume ¾ of the hull speed, or can you tell us at what speed and engine rpm?

And I think that if you send me these data, we can do a less “bony” calculation of global cruising costs between both boats, considering different mileages a year.

PS. It would be very interesting if your brother in law would join this discussion. :idea:
Can you suggest that to him?;)

Vega

05-14-2006, 08:33 PM

It looks I have here a very nice trawler. I like this one and it seems to have "normal" engines for its size: 2x40hp.

http://www.cascadeyachts.com/ct36_0.htm

Ari

05-14-2006, 10:50 PM

Sorry to interrupt with boat of different size than stipulated. Have some discussion with the crew of 120 footer Heesen last Friday. They had done bunkering with 40,000 litres of diesel when in Darwin, took 12 days at about 13 to 14 knots to reach Singapore, consumed 22,000 litres of diesel..proceed to Port Dickson, reach their base marina after 14 days with stop over in Singapore.While in Perth they make friends with a couple on a 40 footer sail boat, met the couple again in Darwin when the Heesen is departing for Singapore, met the couple again in Port Dickson marina 24 days after the Heesen departed Darwin..How much diesel can a 40 footer sail boat carry ?The sail boat make more or less the same passage from Darwin to Port Dickson..with lower cost.The sail boat proceed to Phuket after a few days break in Port Dickson.I know their size are different..and they are doing passage not cruising ?.What interesting to me is that for every single passage journey in a 100% motoryacht, diesel is top priority, in a sail boat it is not.That mean the boat still can travel even if the owner is on a tight budget.Sorry I don't know the cost for a 40 footer boat sail, mast and riggings.

Wellydeckhand

05-14-2006, 11:08 PM

Why not compare a 65ft motoryacht, a sail yachts 65ft and a motorsailer 65ft? To see which would have the best overall performance in term of speed and lowest cost of maintaince? :) I know I am learning from a useful sizable 65ft....

Cheers

WDH

Willallison

05-14-2006, 11:43 PM

Vega - 1st up apologies - my brother-in-law's (BIL from here on..) boat is actually called an Adams 12

http://boatpoint.ninemsn.com.au/DesktopDefault.aspx?UsedBoatID=1735379&TabID=3338&Alias=boatpointau

This boat appears to be better finished inside than my BIL's but otherwise the boats are basically the same. The layout is essentially the same as that which you posted for the Adams 40. A (somewhat small) cabin in the bows and a pair of tunnel berths either side of the companionway steps. I'd hardly class these as 'cabins' so I'd disagree that the two are not equivalent in accomodation (at least in that respect). At the end of the day, both will sleep 8.
The pics of CheoyLee are the same as ours. The boat was definitely designed as a single-engined craft. I don't know how many - if any - were built that way. Market forces probably demanded that the boat had two engines...

When I said bare-bones comparison, I didn't mean I'd ignored a whole lot of stuff - I just didn't bother listing the many costs that are inherent in boat ownership, but which ar likley to be roughly the same for both boats - like antifouling.

As far as mileage goes, I agree, that the best way of comparing would be to come up with a $/mile figure. But the only real way of getting this is if accurate logs have been kept (and they haven't!). I would estimate, howver that the boats would travel a similar distance each year - the sailboat perhaps marginally more, but not much

As far as my BIL's thoughts go - I know what he'd say. He's a die-hard sailor and would rather sink with his (more expensive!) sailboat than admit it cost more to run than a stinkboat!!:D

Guillermo

05-15-2006, 01:58 AM

It looks I have here a very nice trawler. I like this one and it seems to have "normal" engines for its size: 2x40hp.
http://www.cascadeyachts.com/ct36_0.htm
Interesting design. In a hurry now, but I'll take a closer look later.
Cheers.

FAST FRED

05-15-2006, 05:54 AM

"Why not compare a 65ft motoryacht, a sail yachts 65ft and a motorsailer 65ft? To see which would have the best overall performance in term of speed and lowest cost of maintaince?"

The only variable would be speed . The displacement hull form of the sail & motorsail would be nearly identical although the M/S should have larger fuel tanks.
If the motoryacht ran at displacement speeds the fuel burn would be very similar.
If she ran on the plane 1/2 a K for each gallon an hour fuel burn would be lucky.

Any cost differences would mostly be from the level of complexity of the intereior and number of electric gadgets and "comforts" .
Not too many sail boats carry generators for air cond and freezers , but most MS or motor boats will ,(assuming 65ft).

FAST FRED

Vega

05-15-2006, 09:51 AM

Don't be sorry. I know the price of some 40ft sailboats, but I don't have the slightest idea about the number of millions that you have to pay for a 120ft Hessen:p :p :p

Once, arriving at Palma de Maiorca after a straight passage from Portugal, my daughter asked me to go to the more expensive marina in the bay, because that one had a swimming pool and she felt the need of a swim. She had crewed the boat with me, and she deserved that swim. So I called the marina and it happened that they had not a place for my 36ft boat. I asked if they had another place, even bigger, and the lady said they had a 40....place. I didn’t quite understand, but I was thinking of a 40ft place, but when I got the price, I understood she was talking about 40m. The price for a day was 400 euros:rolleyes:

Ari

05-16-2006, 10:01 PM

Don't be sorry. I know the price of some 40ft sailboats, but I don't have the slightest idea about the number of millions that you have to pay for a 120ft Hessen:p :p :p
Here what I meant is the cost of sail, mast, rigging and their maintenance.
Of course the Heesen will cost more as a boat compare to the 40 footer sail boat(about USD10-12 million) I just want to compare cost per journey, and shows that the same task can be perform with different cost and different level of luxury.
Once, arriving at Palma de Maiorca after a straight passage from Portugal, my daughter asked me to go to the more expensive marina in the bay, because that one had a swimming pool and she felt the need of a swim. She had crewed the boat with me, and she deserved that swim. So I called the marina and it happened that they had not a place for my 36ft boat. I asked if they had another place, even bigger, and the lady said they had a 40....place. I didn’t quite understand, but I was thinking of a 40ft place, but when I got the price, I understood she was talking about 40m. The price for a day was 400 euros:rolleyes:
I agree with you..the cost of having a 40m boat and a 40 feet boat is different..even just to get alongside at marina will punch a big hole in the bank account..I still use that example because I cannot find any 30 or 40 footer power boat that had performed more or less same type of ocean crossing passage(about 3000 nautical miles).

Ari

05-16-2006, 10:51 PM

"The relatively small size of our engines, and the improved drive and hull efficiencies, make for a fuel miserly vessel that attempts to break the vicious circle of needing more fuel to power the higher h.p. engines needed to carry more fuel. This speed/fuel dilemma is discussed in an article in MARLIN, Feb-Mar '93. A more recent issue of MARLIN, Jan '95, makes a "head to head comparison" between a traditional 50' sportfisher, "Kelsey Lee" and a 50' catamaran vessel,"Tara Vana" over an identical, non-stop, 900 mile course from Costa Rica to Mexico; 1800 gals of fuel verses 320 gals for the cat (under power for the entire trip). And Tara Vana was able to fish the entire trip, unimpeded by the extra fuel containers which filled up the cockpit of Kelsey Lee. On another occasion, a voyage of 3700 miles was accomplished with the consumption of only 195 gals of fuel! [ The savings in fuel cost alone could defray a substantial portion of the crew salaries of this vessel in charter]"

This comparison is for a multi hull motor sailor againts mono hull motor yacht.I quote this comparison for cost per journey purpose of discussion. I believe cost per journey can give us an idea about the total cost differences between the two type of boat.Hopefully somebody who knows about the cost of mast, sail and riggings maintenance for about the same size boats can elaborate on this and we can have better datas to discuss.Any of you guys who knows about the cost of maintenance for a suitable engine for the same size motor yacht?

Vega

05-17-2006, 08:45 AM

Here what I meant is the cost of sail, mast, rigging and their maintenance.
.....I still use that example because I cannot find any 30 or 40 footer power boat that had performed more or less same type of ocean crossing passage(about 3000 nautical miles).

Yes you can. See post 35 of this thread and have a look at the link.

There are also some motor catamarans.

I have already done some calculations and the initial price of the boat is a huge factor. You can not find in the market any suitable motorboat to compare with the Oceanis, simlpy brcause they all cost 2x or 3x more.

So, in the budget category, the budget cruising sailboat has no rival.
Between two boats of the same price, it is a closer match, regarding costs, I am still looking at it.

fcfc

05-17-2006, 09:58 AM

Yes you can. See post 35 of this thread and have a look at the link.

There are also some motor catamarans.

I have already done some calculations and the initial price of the boat is a huge factor. You can not find in the market any suitable motorboat to compare with the Oceanis, simlpy brcause they all cost 2x or 3x more.

So, in the budget category, the budget cruising sailboat has no rival.

The adria 1000/1002 with a single cummins 80 hp more expensive than a Oceanis ?
And I doubt JM Tanton TEMETA or JP Brouns JMF39 twice the price of an Oceanis.

Vega

05-17-2006, 10:42 AM

The adria 1000/1002 with a single cummins 80 hp more expensive than a Oceanis ?
And I doubt JM Tanton TEMETA or JP Brouns JMF39 twice the price of an Oceanis.

We are talking about production manufactured boats.

Do you really think that the Adria 1002 is a "ocean crossing passage" maker, with a range of "about 3000 nautical miles"? I hope not:rolleyes:

Ari said that he didn't know of a 30/40ft passage maker motorboat with a 3000 m range. That's what I was talking about.;)

fcfc

05-17-2006, 11:46 AM

We are talking about production manufactured boats.

Do you really think that the Adria 1002 is a "ocean crossing passage" maker, with a range of "about 3000 nautical miles"? I hope not:rolleyes:

Ari said that he didn't know of a 30/40ft passage maker motorboat with a 3000 m range. That's what I was talking about.;)

How many Oceanis actually did a 3000 nm passage, and what was the cost of custom modifications made to them for such passage ?

You do not go that far with one 500 ltrs water tank.
Same for electricity. I am not sure the standard fuel tank would allow enough engine charging time to use the fridge continuously for a 3000 nm passage, with the standard electricity / battery / charging system.

fcfc

05-17-2006, 12:16 PM

BTW, 3000 nm at 6 kts average means 20 days.

What are the capacities of the fridge and sub freezer (if any) of the Oceanis to contain food for a crew of 4 for 20 days ?

Or do you intend to eat dry or canned food that long ?

Vega

05-17-2006, 03:13 PM

How many Oceanis actually did a 3000 nm passage,?

A lot!

Not that I would consider it the most adequate boat, but this is the kind of boat that is more used to do Atlantic Crossings. Some time ago Yachting world Magazine published some statistics about the boats more used in the Atlantic Rally for cruisers (ARC). By far, the most used was this type of boat (between 37 and 50ft).

What are the capacities of the fridge and sub freezer (if any) of the Oceanis to contain food for a crew of 4 for 20 days ?

Or do you intend to eat dry or canned food that long ?

You do not go that far with one 500 ltrs water tank.
Same for electricity. I am not sure the standard fuel tank would allow enough engine charging time to use the fridge continuously for a 3000 nm passage, with the standard electricity / battery / charging system.

For a passage like that, this boat would not be comfortable for four, nor would it be the Nordhavn 40, but it is not a problem.

You have three cabins, but you only need two, one is for luggage and supplies.
You can add to the water supply 12 packs of 12 bottles of 1,5L each (mineral water), so you have a total of 716L of water.
You need 5L/day for each person. That will do for 35 days and if you do the passage in that time the average speed will be of only 3,6 knots.
If absolutely necessary it will be possible to go with only 3,5L for person, so I think that you have plenty of safety margins.

You know, there were a lot of passages made before they had invented the freezer, or the fridge.
Anyway on passage nowadays what you use is mostly dried food that you prepare with a mix of sea water and water from the boat. A lot of spaghetti, rice, soup, etc.

To have the fridge running (for the beer, of course), along with the autopilot and the rest of electronics with an engine with two alternators (option available) you need to have it running about 2 hours a day. Running the engine at 1500rpn for 2 hours will burn around 4 L of Diesel. So the 138 L are good for about 35 days. With three 25L jerry cans you have enough for any emergency.

In one of my boat’s cabin I have space for that water and the jerry cans, so in a bigger boat that would not be a problem.

FAST FRED

05-18-2006, 05:54 AM

One advantage of the full displacement boat is it is not handycapped by weight as the multihulls are. So voyaging is possible.

As it is no problem to carry water for a voyage , although the fly weight multihull will need a genset to run a water maker , lots of spairs , for everything , and a box of trace minerals to make the water suitable for humans to LIVE with , as the RO machine takes the minerals out.

FAST FRED

Milan

05-18-2006, 12:38 PM

"… owner and about what the market has to offer…Typical boat owner does not make his own boat, he buys a used one or goes to a boat show and buys a brand new one…"

Indeed, I was talking about unrestricted passage making type of the boat. You can't find them at the boat shows and custom building is the only way to get one. (Aside from buying second hand lifeboat). I think that such custom built boat doesn't have to be expensive if kept simple and focused on essentials - simple, chined hull form, (fast and economical to build in metal), functional, cheap, working boat type of interior and not to many toys.

But, back to this thread, passageing is not what interests typical boat buyer. If one wants to buy a production boat for economical cruising in semi protected waters, I think the easiest solution would be to buy one of the deck-saloon sailing boats without rig and fin. Money saved on the rig, sails and winches could easily finance new shallower rudder, bigger fuel tanks and quite a lot of fuel for the nice, long cruising.

"…About steel boats…Holland is a good place to find them…"

Yes, a very good place indeed.
http://www.botenbank.nl/yachtselect/boten/31050803/view
http://www.nieuweboten.nl/motorkruisers/422488/Gilissen_Spiegelkotter_1975.html

Vega

05-18-2006, 07:12 PM

"…

But, back to this thread, passgeing is not what interests typical boat buyer. If one wants to buy a production boat for economical cruising in semi protected waters, I think the easiest solution would be to buy one of the deck-saloon sailing boats without rig and fin. Money saved on the rig, sails and winches could easily finance new shallower rudder, bigger fuel tanks and quite a lot of fuel for the nice, long cruising.

I will begin with that. Let's see about the costs;)

Vega

05-18-2006, 07:13 PM

The sturier 40, besides being a nice boat, is an interesting boat to this comparison.

That model has a motorsailor version, so it makes things easy.
Let’s begin this comparison with a sturdy heavy motorsailor (the Sturier 40 with sails) against the same boat without sails.

This will show how a heavy traditional kind of motorsail compares, regarding economy, with the same boat without a rig.

Technical characteristics:

MOTORBOAT

Hull Length – 12 M Displ. – 16 T Engine – 100kw Cruising speed 7,5k Price 378 000 euros (cons 20% VAT)

MOTORSAILOR

The same plus a Ketch rig with 65m2 Price 414 000 euros

For this comparison I will consider as price of Diesel 1L=1Euro (here it costs 1,14/L)

I will consider that the sails will last 10 years and will need as maintenance (in those 10 years) 20% of the total cost of the sails. For a set of sails with 65 m2 - 7000 Euros. For maintenance of the rig for 10 years – 1500 euros and the complete substitution of the rig after 20 years.

I will consider that the engine when reaching 2000 hours will have a big revision (engine pulled apart) with some replacements and that will cost 2500 euros. At 4000 hours it will be the same, but with more pieces needing replacement -cost 3250 euros and at 6000 hours the engine will be replaced.

I will consider the initial cost of the boats, the resale value after 10 years and the operating costs for 500m/year, 1500m/year, 3000m/year and 9000m/year, to calculate the total cost of owning and operating each boat.

I will post the results soon.:)

http://www.sturier.com/

Willallison

05-18-2006, 10:51 PM

That looks like being an interesting comparison Vega.
For the motorsailer, what proportion of the distance travelled will you have as being under power and under sail?

fcfc

05-19-2006, 05:15 AM

The sturier 40, besides being a nice boat, is an interesting boat to this comparison.

..............
MOTORBOAT

Hull Length – 12 M Displ. – 16 T Engine – 100kw Cruising speed 7,5k Price 378 000 euros (cons 20% VAT)

MOTORSAILOR

The same plus a Ketch rig with 65m2 Price 414 000 euros

For this comparison I will consider as price of Diesel 1L=1Euro (here it costs 1,14/L)

I will consider that the sails will last 10 years and will need as maintenance (in those 10 years) 20% of the total cost of the sails. For a set of sails with 65 m2 - 7000 Euros. For maintenance of the rig for 10 years – 1500 euros and the complete substitution of the rig after 20 years.

I will consider that the engine when reaching 2000 hours will have a big revision (engine pulled apart) with some replacements and that will cost 2500 euros. At 4000 hours it will be the same, but with more pieces needing replacement -cost 3250 euros and at 6000 hours the engine will be replaced.

I will post the results soon.:)

http://www.sturier.com/

Beware of engine type.

The cat 3056 in the sturier is a commercial engine.
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=52420&x=7
Oil change is scheduled at 400 hours (caterpillar doc). You do not remplace such an engine at 6000 hours. the service life should be around 20 000 hours.

For 100kw, if we stay volvo, you have the choice between
http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/38AF7F3B-1CB9-4635-9F57-2D1E22510E95/0/D3_inboard.pdf
and
http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/D8595ABA-3AE8-437D-9BDA-6CB08B7108D2/0/D5A_T.pdf

One is 100 kW at 4000 rpm, weigthing 260 kg. The other is 100 kW at 2300 rpm, weighting 560 kg.

I think the maintenace costs you cite refer to the first kind of engine. The second one should be in the vicinity of oil changes at 500 hours, so 2000 hours is 4 oil change. No need to open the engine with so "low" hours, and no need to replace the full engine at 12 oil changes.

Yanmar is even worse. For 120 hp, you have 90kW at 3800 rpm, weigth 230 kg
http://www.yanmarmarine.com/products/pdf/JH/4JH3_DTE_TechData.pdf
and 95 kW at 2600 rpm for 700 kg.
http://www.yanmar.co.jp/yasc/products/marine/commercial/1172579_541.html

FAST FRED

05-19-2006, 05:34 AM

"If one wants to buy a production boat for economical cruising in semi protected waters, I think the easiest solution would be to buy one of the deck-saloon sailing boats without rig and fin.

I have a neighbor who purchases a 45 ketch , AFTER the HURRICANE , missing the mainmast .

With a new Deere engine and motoring prop ,and 2/3 the ballast cut off it makes a fine coastal motorboat.

The mizzen remains to carry antennas and a sun awning.

Nice & inexpensive for the boats ability.Good motion & shalow draft.

FAST FRED

Vega

05-19-2006, 05:37 AM

Beware of engine type.

The cat 3056 in the sturier is a commercial engine.
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=52420&x=7
Oil change is scheduled at 400 hours (caterpillar doc). You do not remplace such an engine at 6000 hours. the service life should be around 20 000 hours.

One is 100 kW at 4000 rpm, weigthing 260 kg. The other is 100 kW at 2300 rpm, weighting 560 kg.

I think the maintenace costs you cite refer to the first kind of engine. The second one should be in the vicinity of oil changes at 500 hours, so 2000 hours is 4 oil change. No need to open the engine with so "low" hours, and no need to replace the full engine at 12 oil changes.

Thanks. Please see if you can have the price of the cat 3056 and post the Caterpillar link regarding maintenance.

I agree, that there is a diference in the type of engines and that the numbers I am using are the ones for the wrong type (Volvo-Penta/yanmar).

But 20 000 hours seems to me a lot. In used boats adds, regarding boats with those engines I have never seen one of a boat with an engine with more than 10 000 hours.

fcfc

05-19-2006, 05:45 AM

For a set of sails with 65 m2 - 7000 Euros. For maintenance of the rig for 10 years – 1500 euros and the complete substitution of the rig after 20 years.

And for the sails, the sturier is more than twice heavier than an Oceanis. The rig will be more expensive than an Oceanis, even if area smaller.

If you compare Sturier maintenance vs Oceanis maintenance, the sturier engine maintenance will costs less, being a true commercial fishing engine instead of a volvo automotive adapted engine wich the D2 is, and the sail and rig will cost more because the boat is truly heavier.

Vega

05-19-2006, 06:03 AM

Hum, I had a look at the Caterpillar link regarding the 3056 engine.

As you can see, it is the only that is only C class engine (For vessels operating at rated load and rated speed up to 50% of the time with cyclical load and speed -20% to 80%- load factor). All the others are Class A and B.

So, I think that this engine is in between the other Caterpillar and the Volvo-Penta engines, regarding maintenance and life expectancy.

Vega

05-19-2006, 06:35 AM

And for the sails, the sturier is more than twice heavier than an Oceanis. The rig will be more expensive than an Oceanis, even if area smaller.

If you compare Sturier maintenance vs Oceanis maintenance, the sturier engine maintenance will costs less, being a true commercial fishing engine instead of a volvo automotive adapted engine wich the D2 is, and the sail and rig will cost more because the boat is truly heavier.

I don't agree about the rig, I agree about the engine. See my previous post.

About the rig cost, it is not a problem because I am not comparing with the Oceanis, but I am comparing the price of two versions of the same boat, the Sturier 40. One is a motorboat, the other is a motorsailor, and I have the price of the Sturier rig and sails (that's the difference in price between the two versions).

Vega

05-19-2006, 06:49 AM

That looks like being an interesting comparison Vega.
For the motorsailer, what proportion of the distance travelled will you have as being under power and under sail?

Yes. of course. I have thought about that but I didn't post it.

Based on my sailing experience I will go with this proportion:

Sailing 1/6 of the time (this one really needs wind, probably around 15knots, to be used as a sail boat)

Motorsailing 2/6 of the time (here I am not considering all the time, but the conditions that generate a 50% decrease in fuel consumption)

Motoring 3/6 of the time.

fcfc

05-19-2006, 10:56 AM

Thanks. Please see if you can have the price of the cat 3056 ans post the Caterpillar link regarding maintenance.

I agree, that there is a diference in the type of engines and that the numbers I am using are the ones for the wrong type (Volvo-Penta/yanmar).

But 20 000 hours seems to me a lot. In used boats adds, regarding boats with those engines I had never seen one of a boat with an engine with more than 10 000 hours.

There is no much, except the oil change interval:
http://www.cat.com/cda/components/securedFile/displaySecuredFileServletJSP?fileId=98922&languageId=7

Theses engines are rated for 2000 - 4000 hours year use. So 20 000 hours is only 5 - 10 years of uses in such applications. Note that if you motor 200 days a year, and 8 hours a day, you will only reach 1600 hours at the end of the year.

If you want to see high hours, you need to see professional side : http://www.depco.com/marine_engines/marine_engines_details_page.asp?ID=10277 this engine is to be rebuilt.It had 24 550 hours.

This 11 454 hours engine is rated as good/used. http://www.depco.com/marine_engines/marine_engines_details_page.asp?ID=10286

You do not see so many hours in used leisure boats because they never sail so long so many years and not all have commercial rated engines.
The Recreational Craft Directive says :
"The normal life of the engine is considered to mean:
inboard or stern drive engines with or without integral exhaust: 480 hours or 10 years, whichever occurs first;
personal watercraft engines: 350 hours or 5 years, whichever occurs first;
outboard engines: 350 hours or 10 years, whichever occurs first."

I think you will find the biggest engine hours on Grand Banks. But 30 years of use at 300 hours a year only make 9000 hours, which is very heavy leisure use.
And such engine will probably dyie from corrosion , electrolisys and rot before reaching its mechanical life end.

Russ

05-19-2006, 11:56 AM

This is a great discussion!
I can add a couple of things. At LaCeiba shipyard I have repaired many boats. 30 to 60 ft monohull sail, Private motor yachts 40 to 70 ft and careing for the 35 boat fleet of Moorings Charter Catamarans which you have neglected to include in this discussions. Large Commercial Fishing, shrimper, Lobster boats dont count.
The big thing to consider is the hundreds of little things that can and DO go wrong. Stays, Pullies, cables, sails, mast support, rotting deck core, Teak deck splitting and coming loose, ropes, plexiglass hatches cracking, oh yes we must'nt forget the damage to the keel, shaft, prop and rudder when you happen to go bouncing up on a reef. The list goes on. The sun kills the caulking and you get water leaks that are very elusive, thruhulls, Cutlas Bearings, OMG do you still want a boat?
I agree that a sailing craft costs more to maintain because there are more things to go wrong.
What I am saying is that if you love being on the water in a hole in the ocean into which you throw money, be prepared to do just that.
For real comfort and ease of sailing do not leave out the Catamarans. They are light, not so much draft and provide the space of a Motor Yacht and the sailability of a monohull sailcraft, only faster. I did a bit of work on a 42 foot cat that was powered by 2- 40 horse outboards. It was very nice.
Oh well, just some more to think about, Russ

Vega

05-19-2006, 01:15 PM

Welcome to the discussion Russ.

Well I know, I have a boat:p

But I believe that charter boats give you a lot more work than the ones that are owned by sailors. I do some cruising and I have seen the way charter boats are used, most of the time by people who know very little about boats and just don't care. And the kind of people that charter Cats looks even worse than the ones who charter monohulls.

About Cats, I didn't exclude them, if you want you can take care of that, I mean posting some models to chose one to compare. Around here (in Europe and particularly in the Med), owning a cat is a problem. Marina costs are 1,5 to 2 times more than the price for a boat of the same length and even so, you can not find a place for them.;)

FAST FRED

05-20-2006, 05:39 AM

"I think you will find the biggest engine hours on Grand Banks. But 30 years of use at 300 hours a year only make 9000 hours, which is very heavy leisure use.
And such engine will probably dyie from corrosion , electrolisys and rot before reaching its mechanical life end.'

Most of the engines I have replaced were not due to running hours , but due to sitting idle for endless months , or even years!

EVERY single mfg. will have a service recomendation for preserving an "out of service " engine.
So far I have never seen a private owner bother with this requirement.

It is expensive to do the out of service routine , oil change , special oil in injector system and intake and exhausts capped (in general) .

But its lots MORE expensive to remove the rust from unprotected cylinder walls , by replacing the cylinders!

FAST FRED

Vega

05-20-2006, 09:15 AM

The sturier 40, besides being a nice boat, is an interesting boat to this comparison.

That model has a motorsailor version, so it makes things easy.
Let’s begin this comparison with a sturdy heavy motorsailor (the Sturier 40 with sails) against the same boat without sails.

This will show how a heavy traditional kind of motorsail compares, regarding economy, with the same boat without a rig.

Technical characteristics:

MOTORBOAT

Hull Length – 12 M Displ. – 16 T Engine – 100kw Cruising speed 7,5k Price 378 000 euros (cons 20% VAT)

MOTORSAILOR

The same plus a Ketch rig with 65m2 Price 414 000 euros

For this comparison I will consider as price of Diesel 1L=1Euro (here it costs 1,14/L)

I will consider the initial cost of the boats, the resale value after 10 years

http://www.sturier.com/

First results:

For an average cruising of 375miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 20 084 euros towards the motorboat.

Even not considering the initial difference in price (and resale value), and only considering operating costs, the Motorsailor will cost more 8564 euros to operate.

For an average cruising of 1500miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 9 226 euros towards the motorboat.

Not considering the initial difference in price (and resale value), and only considering operating costs, the Motorsailor will cost less 2306 euros to operate.

For an average cruising of 3000miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 2 500 euros towards the Motorsailor.

Not considering the initial difference in price (and resale value), and only considering operating costs, the Motorsailor will cost less 14020 euros to operate.

For an average cruising of 6000miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 25 011 euros towards the Motorsailor.

Not considering the initial difference in price (and resale value), and only considering operating costs, the Motorsailor will cost less 36 531 euros to operate.

Guillermo

05-20-2006, 10:10 AM

With all respect let me tell you I find this discussion quite futile. I've calculated how much it costs me every mackerel I fish and the figure goes up to 30 Euros a piece. And this only taking in account operational costs!
Recreational boating is a very bad business....:D

Vega

05-20-2006, 10:26 AM

With all respect let me tell you I find this discussion quite futile.

Yes of course, for rich guys like you this is meaningless:rolleyes: , for the others who want to know what kind of boat is less expensive to own and operate while cruising, it makes a lot of sense:cool:

SheetWise

05-20-2006, 11:26 AM

Guillermo -

30 Euros each! That's not such a bad deal. I've spent more per pound in an effort to raise tilapia in the desert. Not only do you get a boat out of the deal -- mackerel is better eating. ;)

Vega

05-20-2006, 12:27 PM

Conclusions about the comparison:

Considering only the loss of boat value, the cost of owning the a new Sturier, during 10 years is of 133 760 Euros for the Motorsailor and 121 950 for the motorboat (considering a depreciation of 68%).
Those numbers make the difference of about 20 000 euros between the total cost of owning the two boats almost meaningless (to one side, or another, I mean, motorsailor or motorboat, depending on cruising milleage/year).

But this will not be the case if you buy a 15 year old Sturier and do the same calculations.

Let’s assume that such a boat will cost 175 000 euros and that, well maintained, it will have a value of 125 000 euros. Then the 20 000 euros difference in operating costs will have a real significance in relation to the 50 000 depreciation value of the boat.

Of course, in inexpensive used boats, the operating costs can be superior to the depreciation value of the boats.

But the main conclusion is that the initial price of the boat has a huge importance in the total costs of owning and operating a boat while cruising.

This makes boats like the Oceanis or Bavarias unbeatable in what regards budget cruising (I am talking about new production market boats), not because a mass production motorboat could not be produced costing the same or even less, but simply because that boat does not exist in the market.
All comparable motorboats regarding interior space and seaworthiness cost at least 1,5X to 3X more.

Of course we can do what Milan suggests: “If one wants to buy a production boat for economical cruising in semi protected waters, I think the easiest solution would be to buy one of the deck-saloon sailing boats without rig and fin. Money saved on the rig, sails and winches could easily finance new shallower rudder, bigger fuel tanks and quite a lot of fuel for the nice, long cruising.”
But that will not beat the Oceanis and Bavaria prices, simply because mass production boats will not do that. They have an image that they don’t want to degrade.

So for doing that you have to go to one of the small semi-custom boat manufactures, and even if you can find one that does that, anyway the initial price of those boats is 2x the price of the Oceanis and Bavarias…so goodbye economical motor boat.

Another conclusion is that, regarding traditional heavy Motorsailors, a mass production boat like the Oceanis will always be less expensive to cruise and to own, simply because traditional Motorsailors are very expensive. As example, a Fisher 37 costs about 300 000 euros and the Nauticat 38 a little bit more.

Regarding this type of motorsailors it is possible to find motorboats with comparable prices that will be less expensive to own and to operate, but of course, this doesn’t mean that they are a better option.

Back to the Sturier, that is a paradigmatic example, because it has the same boat with the two options. For my cruising year mileage, that is about 2000 miles, I would always choose the motorsailor, even if it turns marginally more expensive.

The Sturier has only one engine, and even if it is a good one, accidents will happen, and if you have a problem in the engine, or on the propeller, you are in trouble. With the motor sailor you got two engines (a sail one), and in most situations you will stay out of trouble.

The Motorsailor does not have only the advantage of safety but also of motion comfort. This type of boats (trawlers) roll a lot and without a stabilizing sail they can be very uncomfortable.

When I will have the time I will make the same comparison between a good sailboat and a motorboat. This time the operating costs will be more favorable to the sailboat, in comparison with the traditional motorsailor and a more dificult bet to the motorboat.

Vega

05-20-2006, 01:35 PM

There is another nice French Trawler, The Rhéa 1100, designed by Joubert / Nivelt (the ones that had designed “Andreyale” – post 93).

It can have a 200Hp engine and it is not a beamy boat as most of trawlers of this size. It has a semi displacement hull and it should be an efficient boat regarding consumption/mile, and a relatively fast one too.

http://www.rhea-marine.fr/en/detail_1100_trawler.htm#

fcfc, do you know the price of this one?

Milan

05-20-2006, 06:10 PM

"…for doing that you have to go to one of the small semi-custom boat manufactures, and even if you can find one that does that, anyway the initial price of those boats is 2x the price of the Oceanis and Bavarias…so goodbye economical motor boat…"

I'm not so sure that it would be that much more expensive. By the way, Van de Stadt designed 11.50 meters metal (steel or aluminum) motor boat for economical cruising with a single engine of 37 kW. Boat is more or less deck saloon sailing boat type of hull, with a wider, partly immersed transom. They are not built in series, but on order by at least one Dutch custom builder. Boat is constructed from the pre cut kit multi chine quick assembly method. That should be considerably cheaper then normal custom boat building ways.
http://www.beisterveld.com/index.htm
http://www.stadtdesign.com/English/history11.htm

Here is the another nice aluminum sailing boat built in a small series which could be used as a motor cruiser. Price for the hull, deck, cabin, ballast and Yanmar 3 GM installed is 85 000 E:
http://vanbenthem-jachtbouw.com/

Milan

05-20-2006, 06:40 PM

Interesting, Meta built aluminum boat. A bit bigger then what we are talking about, but same principle. Crossed the Nothern Atlantic both ways in 1984 at an average speed of 7 knots.

Milan

05-20-2006, 07:00 PM

Vega

05-20-2006, 08:03 PM

Here is another nice aluminum sailing boat built in a small series which could be used as a motor cruiser. Price for the hull, deck, cabin, ballast and Yanmar 3 GM installed is 85 000 E:
http://vanbenthem-jachtbouw.com/

Yes and it is a very nice boat, but the price they indicate is without interior furniture, isolation, water tanks, electrical and electronic systems etc.

In a boat with a good interior and good overall systems the price of a hull is 1/4 to 1/5 of the total price of the boat. This will give a price between 254 000 euros and 318 000 euros. Painting an aluminum hull is a very expensive thing. You can count with 15 000 euros more.

The rig, the sails and all the stuff necessary to sail for a 36ft will cost around 35 000 euros.

So I guess that the final price of that boat, without a rig would be between 239 000 euros and 298 000 Euros. And you still have to add 5000 euros to upgrade that engine to a 55hp, because a motorboat needs a bigger engine than a sailboat.

We are talking here of a 36ft. A 40ft would cost about 30% more, and that even considering only the lower price will give 385 000 euros, and that is a good price for a 40ft aluminium boat.

That is about 2x the price of the Oceanis 39.

Ps. I have a budget cruising boat, and I hope to get a better cruising boat for my retirement days. The boat that I want is not like the Oceanis, but an aluminum boat not very different from the one we are talking about and I intend to have it built in Holland. So I know something about prices of aluminium boats.

Vega

05-20-2006, 08:16 PM

We have more or less similar / same discussions on more threads. Just read "Containerable Motorsailers", on motorsailers. That Robert Perry's motorsailer would be a perfect candidate for economical motor cruiser.
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11797

No, this thread is only about comparing cost regarding budget cruising in sailboats and motorboats.

About the Perry's sailboat I don't understand why do you say that.
You don't know the price of that boat (I guess).
And that boat without the sails and the keel would have very little stability (because that narrow and round hull has very little form stability) and would roll in a very inconfortable way. It would only be fit to be used in sheltered waters.

Vega

05-20-2006, 08:19 PM

Interesting, Meta built aluminum boat. A bit bigger then what we are talking about, but same principle. Crossed the Nothern Atlantic both ways in 1984 at an average speed of 7 knots.

Those are very expensive boats, I mean the motorboats buit by Meta.

Milan

05-20-2006, 08:54 PM

Hi Paulo, I see that I'm not the only one awake late at night. :)
"…Painting an aluminum hull is a very expensive thing. You can count with 15 000 euros more..."
Yes, but it doesn't have to be painted, aside from under water.

"…have to add 5000 euros to upgrade that engine to a 55hp, because a motorboat needs a bigger engine than a sailboat…"

For such an light and easy driving hull smaller engine would be adequate (if economical cruising is the deal). Stronger engine would just make bigger waves and burn more fuel, for marginally higher speed.

"…The boat that I want is …"
I remembered what types of boats you like and your drawings, yes, good boats I like them too.

Perry's motor sailor - such light and narrow boat would burn very little fuel. Roll could be helped with a small steadying rig.

Meta - boats are quite expensive but the yard is very flexible to customers needs. They would sell some of their standard 12 m sailing boat types without keel and rig without any problem.
Considering how strong and durable Meta boats are, maintenance costs should be very low.

Guillermo

05-21-2006, 02:15 AM

Paulo,
Now that you have worked a lot (My hat is up to you :) ), here you have something else to think about. What about this cat concept?
http://www.aviadesign.com/MC29Perf.htm

I know this is a 29 footer, but the concept could easily be brought to 36'. Efficiency in the 10 to 20 kn range seems excellent. Boat's price has to be asked for...

Vega

05-21-2006, 07:09 AM

"…have to add 5000 euros to upgrade that engine to a 55hp, because a motorboat needs a bigger engine than a sailboat…"

For such an light and easy driving hull smaller engine would be adequate (if economical cruising is the deal). Stronger engine would just make bigger waves and burn more fuel, for marginally higher speed.
.

Believe me Milan, there are some misconceptions about the size of the engines of power boats. Some people put some ridiculous powerful engines in them, others think that what you need is a motor that can do just about ¾ of the hull speed of the boat.
It is not like that, the motor has to have a reserve of power to use when things go wrong , I mean when you are caught in bad weather. The power needed for that can easily triple the one you need for just carrying the boat at hull speed. In a motorboat you have to have that power, for safety. With a sailboat you don’t need it because in gale force winds you have plenty of power with small sails.

Perry's motor sailor - such light and narrow boat would burn very little fuel. Roll could be helped with a small steadying rig.
.

Yes, but then it will not be a motorsailor, not a motorboat. And you will have to pay the rig and the sail maintenance.

Meta - boats are quite expensive but the yard is very flexible to customers needs. They would sell some of their standard 12 m sailing boat types without keel and rig without any problem.
Considering how strong and durable Meta boats are, maintenance costs should be very low.

Yes, but the main conclusion I got is that initial price is a huge factor regarding budget cruising and the initial price of those boats would always be high.

Vikendios

05-21-2006, 10:50 AM

Vega

05-21-2006, 02:20 PM

Fascinating thread, for me at least, because I'm right at the bull-eye having just sold my sailboat to buy a trawler. But I find it very theoretical, so I'd like to make the following down-to-earth comments.

The Oceanis 39 is only secundarily designed for owners. It has been designed to the requirements of Messrs Sunsail, Moorings, etc.. first and foremost. Draw your own conclusions..

…. anything under 44 feet is not a sea vessel. In my opinion he is right, as least when you're past the age of 50.

When you grow older and arthritic (like me) is the time when you'll really start looking at the sail vs. slow motor option. You're probably retiring at that stage in life, so you usually have more money, and certainly much more time, to devote to your new baby. The parameters will have changed. A 10-year old GB 42 becomes a normal alternative to a new Oceanis 39.

In Med cruising with its instant gales, the ability of a trawler to occasionally plane at twice its hull speed, even if it is unaffordable to use regularly, is a very reassuring 'let's get to shelter quicker' feature even for old salts like me.

Keep on this great debate.
Vikendios

Thanks Vikendio.

The Oceanis is a subject in this thread because this thread is about low budget cruising and that is not obviously what you are interested in.

About the arthritis, the worst thing you can do is stop moving (I have some problems too). Try Shark cartilage pills (I am not kidding) and don’t stop moving.

The sailboats that you can compare with the GB 42 are in another league, and they can be considered motorsailors, because they can go on motor anywhere and they have an inside steering station (some with a joystick). They are also boats that are intended to be used by old guys, because those are the only ones that can afford them:p . Their sail systems are highly automatic and mechanized.

Have a look at these boats:

http://www.nordship.dk/index.php?id=349&main=Yachts&menu=Nordship%20DS43&menuid=344

http://www.fantasi-yachts.se/yachts.asp?lang_id=1&id=1

http://www.nauticat.com/Default.aspx?id=436827&BoatId=13&ShowView=Photos&PhotoCategory=11

http://www.reginayachts.com/reg43.html

The choice between one of those and a GB 42 is a personal thing. That has nothing to do with economy, but with different styles of live;) .

Regarding seaworthiness, yes it is true that with a GB42 perhaps you can stay away of bad weather or maybe not (it really depends where you are), but if you are caught by it, any of the sailboats will be more confortable to ride through it.

About this statement: “anything under 44 feet is not a sea vessel. In my opinion he is right, as least when you're past the age of 50”

Take a look at the post 54 of this thread:) :

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11537&page=4

Regards

Paulo

Ps – About the GB 42 and planing speeds you should be aware of this:

“The hull form of the GB42 is a semi-displacement design meaning that given enough horsepower planing speeds can be attained. …
Powered by a single engine, cruising speed ranges from 7 to 10 knots depending on engine horsepower from 120 to 375.
For example, with twin 210 Cats, the GB42 cruises comfortably and economically at about 10 knots on about 9 gallons of fuel per hour. However, she is capable of a top speed of 15 knots at 23 gallons per hour. This is a 50% increase in speed at the cost of nearly a 200% increase in fuel consumption and reduced cruising range but it’s nice to know you have it if you need it.
The Grand Banks 42 is not the right boat if you want a full displacement ocean-going motor vessel, but it certainly fits the need of the vast majority of boaters who don’t intend to venture far offshore or cross oceans.
The Grand Banks 42 easily accommodates a dozen people for cocktails, six can dine in reasonable comfort and when it’s time to turn in for the evening she provides privacy and comfort for four. This is may be why many who are willing to travel at a leisurely, slow pace consider the Grand Banks 42 Classic a near perfect coastal cruising powerboat.”

http://www.boatus.com/jackhornor/power/42GrandBanks.htm

Those sailboats whose links I have posted can motor cruise at 8knots. For having a substantial difference in speed with the GB42 you need at least two engines with 2x210 hp, and if you want to have the top speed of 20knots, a lot more than that.

Guillermo

05-21-2006, 02:21 PM

... anything under 44 feet is not a sea vessel. In my opinion he is right, as least when you're past the age of 50.
It is said that your age in years, length of the boat in feet and minimum angle sailable against wind in degrees, should coincide :D

And I've also heard that only poor people beat to winward when in extensive cruising...:D :D

Vega

05-21-2006, 07:50 PM

Well, as I have promised, I am posting the results comparing a sailboat and a motorboat, regarding cruising costs.

As I have said it was pointless to make the comparison between the Oceanis and any other comparable new market production motorboat. If that comparison was made the Oceanis would win by a large margin, not because it would be cheaper to operate, but because its initial price would be half of price of the motorboat, and that would have a huge relevance in the final result.

So I have chosen to make a more complete comparison between those two Willallison’s family boats: The Adams 40 and the Cheoylee 36 (see posts 95-112-116).

The boats have the same value, but I should point out that, for having the same value the motorboat should be about 10 years older, as it seems to be the case.

So here are the results:

(Considering only operating and marina costs and considering that the boats have the same value (89 000 euros) and suffer the same depreciation.)

For an average cruising of 375miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 9 221 euros towards the motorboat (less expensive).

For an average cruising of 1500miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 1 012 euros towards the motorboat.

For an average cruising of 3000miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 9 976 euros towards the sailboat (less expensive).

For an average cruising of 6000miles/year during 10 years, all considered, the difference will be of 31 922 euros towards the Sailboat.

Conclusions:

If you are going to circumnavigate, do that in a sailboat. The difference in operating costs (163 688 euros) will be superior to the cost of a new Oceanis 39 and about 1,5X more than the price of any of the boats compared here.:D

Only if you are really a cruiser, should you buy a sailboat. If you have the boat to show to your friends, buy a motorboat.:P

Seriously, my average cruising is of about 2500m/year and with that mileage a sail boat will cost me about 1000 euros less a year and that is not a significant number compared with the total cost of owning a boat.
Most of my cruiser friends do a lot less mileage a year than I do, and for them a motorboat would be more economical, but never of any importance compared with the total cost.

Of course, now I can only cruise for about 40 days in a year, but I am preparing things to be able to cruise for about 120 days a year, in about five years. Then it will make a huge difference in total costs.;)

yacht371

05-21-2006, 08:17 PM

The 37 foot version is found at www.aviadesign.com/mc37.htm

This one is not yet final, nor approved for production. Comments welcome.

Grahame Shannon

Willallison

05-21-2006, 09:27 PM

FAST FRED

05-22-2006, 04:39 AM

Vikendios

05-22-2006, 07:35 AM

Dear Vega :

My point is you can compare a 10 yr old GB 42 or 36 to a new Beneteau of the same size : The purchase price will be about the same. The emphasis is on 10 yr old vs. new. The 10 yr old will require more maintenance, but retired people have the time.

Concerning your quote :

'They are also boats that are intended to be used by old guys, because those are the only ones that can afford them'

My point was that young people will never be interested in slow motor boats, at least none that I know of except a few ecolos and even these will always go for wind power in the end.

Obligado,

Vikendios

Vega

05-22-2006, 10:41 AM

Vega:
So - the end result - even when operating in Europe, where the cost of fuel is higher than almost anywhere else in the world, is the for the vast majority of people, a motorboat will be cheaper to own and operate than a comparable sailboat.
I believe my initial point is proven, yet again:D

Williallison, I don’t want to prove anything, but if you insist in wanting to prove something, try something else, because this simply is not true: “for the vast majority of people, a motorboat will be cheaper to own and to operate than a comparable sailboat”.

And it is not true because as I have demonstrated, the initial price of a boat has a huge importance in the total cost of owning a boat. As I can not have an adequate motorboat for less than twice the price of an oceangoing sailboat, in what regards budget cruising, a sailboat will always be less expensive by a huge margin.

I have learned something about engines on this thread. The engines of these motorboats are not like sailboats engines and it is not only a question of power. I have made the calculations and I have found out that in the end, with an initial higher price, it costs less per hour than a sailboat engine (0,825euros/h to 1,5euros/h). But that happens only if you make a huge number of hours. If you make only 4000 hours or so, then the initial cost of the engine will simply make a boat a lot more expensive to own, because the initial price of a boat will be a lot higher.

The difference between a 40hp sailboat engine and a 125hp motorboat engine (like the Caterpillar 3056 in the Sturier) is almost the double of the price of a rig and sails for a boat with the same size.

That partially explains why the true oceangoing motorboats are so expensive and why they are not a match for a sailboat, regarding budget cruising and total ownership costs.

I have said that:

“….. it was pointless to make the comparison between the Oceanis and any other comparable new market production motorboat. If that comparison was made the Oceanis would win by a large margin, not because it would be cheaper to operate, but because its initial price would be half of price of the motorboat, and that would have a huge relevance in the final result.”

And I have said that the match with the Cheyolee36 and the Adams40 was only a match, because the Cheyolee36 was 10 years older than the Adams. If the boats had the same age, the superior initial cost of the Cheyolee would make it a lot more expensive to own.

Vikendios has understood that, even if I doubt that a 10 year old Grand Banks costs the same as a new Oceanis39 :

Dear Vega :

My point is you can compare a 10 yr old GB 42 or 36 to a new Beneteau of the same size : The purchase price will be about the same. The emphasis is on 10 yr old vs. new. The 10 yr old will require more maintenance, but retired people have the time.Vikendios

fcfc

05-22-2006, 12:01 PM

.....
The difference between a 40hp sailboat engine and a 125hp motorboat engine (like the Caterpillar 3056 in the Sturier) is almost the double of the price of a rig and sails for a boat with the same size.

No.

See http://www.frenchmarine.com/Product.aspx?PID=505&CID=79
You have the price of a D2-40. The price, given £ exchange rate and taxes roughly translates to 13000 euros.

The N67 NMA M15 125 hp iveco marine engine is listed at 13340 euros. http://www.brizmotors.ru/sud1.php
roughly equivalent to the caterpilar engine . http://www.maesco.com/products/mar_prop/N67MNAM15.pdf .
I agree that price do not include gearbox and taxes. A heavy gearbox (ZF63) is about 3000 euros.

So the difference is about 6000 euros. I do not think you can buy sails and rig/mast for a 40 ft for that amount.

For the same power, the john deere marine engine 4045TFM (4.5L turbo) is even less expensive than the iveco N67.

Even if you compare with a Deutz DT44 (115 hp), from the same reseller http://www.frenchmarine.com/Product.aspx?PID=211&CID=81 with a Z45A gearbox, the difference would be only around 7000 euros.

fcfc

05-22-2006, 12:24 PM

That partially explains why the true oceangoing motorboats are so expensive and why they are not a match for a sailboat, regarding budget cruising and total ownership costs

Neither.

Ocean going motorboats are more expensive simply because the ones you look are VERY heavy. The Sturier is more than TWICE the weight of an Oceanis. The Nordhavn 40 is THREE time.

People who buy this kind of motorboats would find absoloutely inacceptable the comfort (or lack of...) or the scantlings of an Oceanis.

Vega

05-22-2006, 01:55 PM

No.

See http://www.frenchmarine.com/Product.aspx?PID=505&CID=79
You have the price of a D2-40. The price, given £ exchange rate and taxes roughly translates to 13000 euros.

The N67 NMA M15 125 hp iveco marine engine is listed at 13340 euros. http://www.brizmotors.ru/sud1.php
roughly equivalent to the caterpilar engine . http://www.maesco.com/products/mar_prop/N67MNAM15.pdf .
I agree that price do not include gearbox and taxes. A heavy gearbox (ZF63) is about 3000 euros.

So the difference is about 6000 euros. I do not think you can buy sails and rig/mast for a 40 ft for that amount.
.

You say a lot of engines prices, except the Caterpillar 3056 price.

This is the only reference I could find. I will see the correct price tomorrow.

Caterpillar 3056 6 cyl Auction: 3/1-3/2006 in Moerdijk (Price entered as 51,000 Euro.)

http://www.machinerytrader.com/listings/AuctionResults/list.asp?catid=1005&man=KEESTRACK

Vega

05-22-2006, 02:37 PM

Ocean going motorboats are more expensive simply because the ones you look are VERY heavy. The Sturier is more than TWICE the weight of an Oceanis. The Nordhavn 40 is THREE time.

But I agree, of course, without the very low CG of a sailboat given by ballast in a deep keel, the only way to ensure the stability needed to an oceangoing vessel is increasing weight. That will increase costs and the engine power needed, increasing consumption and again, costs.

People who buy this kind of motorboats would find absoloutely inacceptable the comfort (or lack of...) or the scantlings of an Oceanis.

I agree, but that is completely irrelevant.

We are talking about the least expensive way to cruise, budget cruising if you want. You are saying that those motorboats are not appropriate for that because people who buy them are not interested in budget cruising ...and I agree, they are expensive boats for rich people.... It is what I am saying, there are no inexpensive oceangoing cruiser motorboats in the market.

These guys are the ones that can not live without a floating Hotel and as Fred said: “Complex boats with water makers , freezers , air cond , washers , dryers , large refrigerators and sat internet will cost loads more than the folks that think a wind scoop and cockpit sun cover are the Hight of Luxury” and these last ones are the ones that do budget cruising, a different breed, and it is not only a difference in money but also a difference in style.

fcfc

05-22-2006, 02:38 PM

You say a lot of engines prices, except the Caterpillar 3056 price.

This is the only reference I could find. I will see the correct price tomorrow.

Caterpillar 3056 6 cyl Auction: 3/1-3/2006 in Moerdijk (Price entered as 51,000 Euro.)

http://www.machinerytrader.com/listings/AuctionResults/list.asp?catid=1005&man=KEESTRACK

Seems you confused the engine with the equipment powered by the engine :D
http://www.vanhemertgrondverzet.nl/keestrack.htm

Vega

05-22-2006, 02:50 PM

Seems you confused the engine with the equipment powered by the engine :D
http://www.vanhemertgrondverzet.nl/keestrack.htm

Yes you are right, but only about this:P

Guillermo

05-22-2006, 03:50 PM

The 37 foot version is found at www.aviadesign.com/mc37.htm

This one is not yet final, nor approved for production. Comments welcome.

Grahame Shannon
Grahame,
Will it have ocean crossing or at least long range capability? What could it be the price range?

fcfc

05-22-2006, 04:20 PM

But I agree, of course, without the very low CG of a sailboat given by ballast in a deep keel, the only way to ensure the stability needed to an oceangoing vessel is increasing weight. ....

I do not agree with this. So how do JM Tanton TAMETA ( http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2028/si/tameta/size/big/perpage/12 ) or JB Brouns JMF39 ( listed in a previous post ) to get their stability and seaworthiness, since they have about the same weight as an Oceanis ?

I foresee marketing problems, but I do not see what technical point could prevent Beneteau from building a clone in FRP of above boats for a price similar or even lower than a Oceanis 393.

Guillermo

05-22-2006, 04:30 PM

Neither.

Ocean going motorboats are more expensive simply because the ones you look are VERY heavy. The Sturier is more than TWICE the weight of an Oceanis. The Nordhavn 40 is THREE time.

People who buy this kind of motorboats would find absoloutely inacceptable the comfort (or lack of...) or the scantlings of an Oceanis.
I agree.

I also agree when Vega states that there are not cheap long range motorboats in the market (as to be compared with the long range ability of a sail boat). Because they cannot be.

If they carry a lot of fuel and they have to be fuel efficient, so with a low HP/D ratio, and at the same time reach a reasonable cruising speed, we only get this with long, narrow boats. We'd go well up of 50' for such a boat. And length is the most expensive dimension, from all points of view. So, if you go expensive, you go expensive, forget about cheapness and pour into it a bunch of luxuries...
On the other hand, you have Nordhavns and the like, with a lot of inside room for the size, not so efficient forms and higher HP/D ratios. Expensive also.

And if you go long range, you build everything with proper scantlings...

Here some simple parameters for the Oceanis 36 Cc
D/L = 197,47
SA/D = 18,02
HP/D = 2.48 (Asuming 85% of the 39 HP of the Volvo Penta 2040)
HSPD = 7,48 Kn
CSF = 2,1
MCR = 21,77
SSV = 57,1
AVS = 118,49 º

So, with a CSF of 2,1 and a MCR of 21,77 I wouldn't say this is an all weather long range cruiser at all!
This is a boat with good weather islands hopping or coast pottering in mind. Absolutely respectable, but it is what it is.

As I said before, we shoud be comparing eggies with eggies....sorry, Paulo :(

(P.S.: Just to clarify: I define 'Eggies' as round, white and fragile boats...)

Vega

05-22-2006, 04:49 PM

I do not agree with this. So how do JM Tanton TAMETA ( http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2028/si/tameta/size/big/perpage/12 ) or JB Brouns JMF39 ( listed in a previous post ) to get their stability and seaworthiness, since they have about the same weight as an Oceanis ?
.
This is a nice boat, but not an oceangoing boat. Probably not even a class B boat. Nothing wrong with that, it is impossible to do otherwise.
As I have said, weight in a relatively small oceancoing motorboat is needed not only to major its stability but also because the boat will have to carry huge quantities of fuel and water, and that is impossible in a light boat.

Vega

05-22-2006, 05:42 PM

If they carry a lot of fuel and they have to be fuel efficient, so with a low HP/D ratio, and at the same time reach a reasonable cruising speed, we only get this with long, narrow boats. We'd go well up of 50' for such a boat.
On the other hand, you have Nordhavns and the like, with a lot of inside room for the size, not so efficient forms and higher HP/D ratios. Expensive also.

Considering ocean going motorboats, a trawler type can be a lot smaller, compared with a long and narrow boat, simply because its superior beam gives it a lot more form stability. For the same reason (beam and form stability), motorcats are the only motorboats that don’t have to be really heavy.

[QUOTE=Guillermo]

Guillermo, get your spectacles, cause you are making a lot of confusions.:P

I never talked about the Oceanis 36, but only about the 39ft Oceanis (now called 393).

About all those data that you like to post, the really important one is not there. Post the RM curves and that will show us what is the force necessary to capsize all those boats, let us see what is the inverted stability and the real AVS, not a program calculated one that is often grossly inaccurate.

The Oceanis 39 is a completely different boat, It is 42% heavier than the 36, has a much bigger AVS and almost 50% larger RM values. Nothing to do really.

Sorry Guillermo:p

Guillermo

05-22-2006, 05:59 PM

Data for Oceanis 390

D/L = 173,38 (Even lighter than the 36, proportionally!)
SA/D = 16,63
HP/D = 2,96 (85% of Perkins 50 HP as mounted in several units)
HSPD = 7,73 Kn
CSF = 2,11
MCR = 21,23
AVS = 119,62º

Neither a great deal of a boat, with 2,11 CSF and 21,23 MCR. Just another chap-a-potting eggy, from my point of view.

Data for the 393 Clipper

D/L = 177,63
SA/D = 14,75
HP/D = 3,15
HSPD = 7,94 Kn
CSF = 2,02
MCR = 24,03
AVS = 118,87 º

Same thing, same philosophy, conceived for the chartering market, not serious cruising (That's why wise owners cross with ARC!).

You said: "Post the RM curves..." You do it, please, and we'll discuss them. I'm not able to find them even at Beneteau's site. And I understand them: What on earth do the chartering people need the RM curves for...? :D

And, Paulo: HP/D being almost 3 or even bigger makes these boats real (and even overpowered!) motorsailers. I thought you was banning them out of here! :P

Vega

05-22-2006, 06:42 PM

Data for Oceanis 390

D/L = 173,38
SA/D = 16,63
HP/D = 2,96 (85% of Perkins 50 HP as mounted in several units)
HSPD = 7,73 Kn
CSF = 2,11
MCR = 21,23
AVS = 119,62º

Neither a great deal of a boat, with 2,11 CSF and 21,23 MCR. Just another chap-a-potting eggy, from my point of view.

:P

That computed generated data that you insist in posting is almost meaningless and can be grossly inaccurate, for instance the AVS that you have posted for the 36CC was 118,87º.The real value (not a computer generated one) is 126º and that is a huge
difference.

Regarding seaworthiness and stability, the best overall Index is the Stix number (not a computer generated one). The oceanis 36cc has a Stix number of 35, the Oceanis 393 has a Stix number of 43.

That’s a little bit like comparing the seaworthiness of two similarly designed boats (hull form) one with 35ft, the other with 43ft. It has nothing to do. Big, big difference.

Actually a Stix of 43 for a 39 boat is a very good number, a number that you wouldn’t expect on a 39ft Beneteau.

Willallison

05-22-2006, 07:02 PM

Vega - I realise you are not trying to prove anything - just to make comparisons. And whilst I maintain that my original statement is not only correct, but now proven correct in a number of instances, I will grant that to date you have all been unable to find a NEW motorboat of ocean going capability that compares with the Oceanis 39 on initial purchase price.
I will make two points.
1. If you buy a Nordhavn that costs vastly more than the Oceanins in the first instance, what will the resale be in 10 years time? It may well be that on depreciation alone the Nordhavn will come out in front....

2. You say you are looking only at the budget end of the cruising spectrum. These people do not buy new boats. They have a given amount of money and go shopping for whatever they can afford. Therefore, I believe the CheoyLee vs Adams 12 is a valid comparison.

Your insistance on comparing to the Oceanis and a requirement for ocean going capability may well make it impossible to find a motorboat that is cheaper to own and operate - I don't know - as I've said a number of times, I've had little spare time to contribute constructively to this thread, and for that I apologise.
Carry on gents - if nothing else, this is interesting!:D

Willallison

05-22-2006, 08:48 PM

One of the things not pointed out yet is the vast majority of time is spent on the hook (or at a dock) while cruising.

On a "round the world " cruise most report 90% in port time.

So the question becomes how hard is it ,,$$$$ , time and effort to maintain "your" lifestyle?

Complex boats with water makers , freezers , air cond , washers , dryers , large refrigerators and sat internet will cost loads more than the folks that think a wind scoop and cockpit sun cover are the Hight of Luxury.

The simple cost of port to port fuel , isnt much , power or sail, if your'e maintaining a modern luxury HOTEL!

Absolutely correct, and part of the reason why I've said repeatedly that fuel cost is only a small proportion of the cost of boat ownership.
But the cost of these things would be the same for power and sail. Well maybe a little less for sail, for as we know they shower all that often...;) :D :D

Guillermo

05-23-2006, 02:09 AM

Paulo,
I wouldn't be so despreciative towards parameters that have been helping NA's for many time to compare boats. For sure stability data for a specific boat can only be accurate after performing the inclining experiment and then all due calculations. As you can imagine I know this quite well, as it is one of the ways I earn my life. But those simple parameters are helpful when you do not have the precise data, believe me.

You shouldn't use the RM curves to study stability criteria and so be able to compare boats, but RA ones as it is the normal practice. You have to take displacement out of the thing.

An then, as you already know, for sure, a bigger boat with a similar RA curve to an smaller one will have better resistance to weather because the righting moment is affected by displacement. In a very simplified way we may say scalability effects vary following a rule "square-cube". Heeling forces, depending on impact from wind and waves, rise with square of dimensions (length times height over floatation), but the righting moment, depending on displacement, rises with the cube of dimensions (Length times breath times draft). So a boat with twice the size than other, has eight times more righting energy than the smaller one.

I keep on asking you to post the RA curves (Or RM, if you don't have the RA. We'll work out the thing), because I do not have them, so the only thing I can do is working with calculated parameters.

Here more calculated data for Oceanis 393:

Roll Period T = 2,78 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,14 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,7

Roll acceleration Vs four physiological states; Imperceptible, Tolerable, Threshold of Malaise, and Intolerable. Malaise starts at .1 G, Intolerable begins at .18 G. G levels above .06 are considered undesirable for offshore cruising conditions. This boat has Acc = 0.14 . Judge by yourself.

SI criteria:
< 1.0 vessel considered "STIFF"
~ 1.1 vessel considered "IDEAL"
> 1.5 vessel considered "TENDER"

Once again, this boat has SI = 0,7, so it is quite STIFF (As you can see, this is in accordance with what we got for MCR)

If you do not have the RM curves, I can estimate also righting arms at 1º, 10º, 20º and 30º, as well as GM, try to work out a GZ curve, then do the same with a proper ocean going boat of similar size and compare things. But I would like this happening in the "Stability Forum" Jeff promised some time ago....(?)

Most probably the Oceanis 393 will stay happily turtled down if capsized, in my opinion, specially the shoal draught version.

Cheers.

fcfc

05-23-2006, 05:31 AM

This is a nice boat, but not an oceangoing boat. Probably not even a class B boat. Nothing wrong with that, it is impossible to do otherwise.
As I have said, weight in a relatively small oceancoing motorboat is needed not only to major its stability but also because the boat will have to carry huge quantities of fuel and water, and that is impossible in a light boat.

So, how do beneteau do to certify for seven persons, in category B, this boat:
http://www.beneteau.com/$gp/ficheModele.do?code=61069&extension=004
if a TAMETA cannot be at least category B ?

If you read the TAMETA legend, you would have seen that the payload is 4840 kg. A powerboat going at 7 kts with 35 hp turning the prop will use about 1 l per nm.(conservative not efficient number, but easy calc ) That is 3000 l for 3000 nm. The weigth of 3000 l of fuel is about 2460 kg. well within the reach of a TAMETA, leaving 2380 kg for water, crew and gear.
For water, you spoke for the oceanis of about 716 l for 3000 nm. That leaves more than 1.6 tons for crew and gear.
The figures for the JMF39 are similar (empty 7 T, loaded 12 T). The document states "autonomie 3000 milles" (range 3000 nm).

Theses powerboats will ba as seaworthy as a Oceanis 393, but as Guillermo stated, the Oceanis 393 and similars are not a real offshore cruising boat.

...
2.1 TheYacht
Ocean Madam was a production Beneteau Oceanis 390 yacht. The class is typical of its type with a high volume, low ballast ratio, light displacement and shallow hull form. It is highly suitable for most activities including charter work and has a good safety record. It is not a suitable craft for crossing oceans in bad weather. Such craft are more susceptible to the effects of oceanic weather conditions and especially to heavy seas.
...
There is no evidence to suggest the craft was unsuitable for moderately rough weather conditions nor is it suggested there should be any restrictions imposed.
...
The limitations of this type of light displacement craft are, however, well known to experienced blue water sailors.
...
3.1 Findings
...
12. Ocean Madam was knocked down twice; the first to just beyond her beam ends, the second was a roll over. She recovered from the first but took an appreciable time to come upright from the second.
...
3.2.2 Contributory Causes and Underlying Factors
....
4. The skipper’s over-optimism about the ability of Ocean Madam to withstand heavy weather and breaking waves.

From http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_masafety_030920.pdf

Vikendios

05-23-2006, 08:09 AM

Re : Affordable real world motor boating.

So I think this debate is making clear that there is no such thing as cheap ocean crossing motoring. Even a Nordhavn 40 got knocked down and barely made it in their well publicised transatlantic rally (check their web site).

However if you want to cruise the Med or the Carribean and you're young and fit and take your vacations in the sun, there is only one motor alternative to sailing a 39-ft Beneteau and that's one of these italian large inflatables with cabins and a pair of big outboards.

You see them all over the Med and they think nothing of making the kind of 100 NM passages that will take them to Ibiza, Corsica or Mykonos because they have the speed to do it on one weather forecast and the liferaft ability to survive if everything goes wrong.

And again, youth likes speed.

Vikendios

'Behold the sea... Never will you find a mistress so beautiful, or so unforgiving...'
(from Morrowind, the best game of all time)

Guillermo

05-23-2006, 05:56 PM

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_masafety_030920.pdf
Interesting report, fcfc.
From "CONCLUSIONS" there:

"The Oceanis 390 is a safe, comfortable, yacht suitable for pleasure sailing and charter work. Her lightweight design, however, together with her stability characteristics, introduce a high risk factor in the type of extreme sea-state conditions encountered by Ocean Madam. The yacht is not designed for crossing oceans in bad weather."

From my point of view the same applies to the 393
Cheers.

Vega

05-23-2006, 07:17 PM

Interesting report, fcfc.
From "CONCLUSIONS" there:

"The Oceanis 390 is a safe, comfortable, yacht suitable for pleasure sailing and charter work. Her lightweight design, however, together with her stability characteristics, introduce a high risk factor in the type of extreme sea-state conditions encountered by Ocean Madam. The yacht is not designed for crossing oceans in bad weather."

You can only be joking. Perhaps you can tell me what is the 39ft that is appropriate to "extreme sea-state conditions" and "is designed for crossing oceans in bad weather".

Get serious Guillermo, as you very well know even big boats can sunk in bad weather. Sailing in a small boat involves always some risks.

When a boat is classified as class A, meaning that it is an oceangoing boat, that does not mean that it is a boat suitable for extreme conditions.

You know that very well, and I would expect from you more precision, comparing what is comparable.

Take a look at this description of the encounter of a Nordhavn with some “bad” weather:

“winds ripped at 25 knots, whipping the open Atlantic into a washing machine of 10-foot swells. ……The wind edged up, pushing the waves in the beam sea over 12 feet. Uno Mas perched on a crest, then dropped port side down toward the trough. As she reached bottom, …“It looked like Uno Mas was at a 90-d e g ree angle,” said Cecil Newsome, who was on Egret, the boat closest to The Fearless 40.
…When Uno Mas went over, her port side was momentarily submerged. Seawater forced its way aboard via the e n g i n e - room vents…..The primary bilge pump simply c o u l d n ’t handle the load. Salt water filled the bilge up to the engine’s oil pan.”

As you can see the best 40ft Oceangoing trawler, the Nordhavn 40, one of the few 40 ft motorboats that is classified as a class A boat (oceangoing), is obviously not designed to handle bad weather and as you can see, in this case, bad weather is very relative, 10, 12ft swells, 25 knots of wind, gusting occasionally to 50 doesn’t seem a lot to me.

But this doesn’t make the Nordhavn 40 less suitable as an Oceangoing boat, that only means, as everybody seems to know except you, that small boats, even if relatively seaworthy and considered as oceangoing boats are not designed for extreme conditions and should be used with care, in the assumption that the skipper knows the limitations of his boat.

As this discussion is completely out of the boundaries of this Thread( that is about comparing costs of Budget cruising between Motorboats and sailboats) from now on the definition of a oceangoing boat will be of a boat that has passed the tests and criteria needed to be classified as such in the EU. A class A boat, regardless of being a sailboat or motorboat, will be considered an oceangoing boat.

If you want to discuss what an oceangoing boat should be, open a thread about it, this one is about comparing budget cruising costs between motorboats and sailboats.

Ps. I will reply to your post on stability (I don’t agree with what you say) on the stability thread.

Guillermo

05-24-2006, 12:26 AM

Get serious Guillermo...You know that very well, and I would expect from you more precision, comparing what is comparable....as everybody seems to know except you...
Are you trying to do this personal? I'm beginning to think you do not accept criticisms...:)

I've been there, 34 years ago, at the same place as "Ocean Madam" aboard my father's Northwind 40 "Samba" in very similar conditions (up to force 10 in our case) and we handled the thing without major problems as many other properly designed boats of the size have done in many ocasions the world's oceans around. 39r's can be designed (and are, as a matter of fact) as to survive conditions like the ones Ocean Madam encountered, absolutely.

From the RCD commented, as issued by the RSG:
"The design category parameters are intended to define the physical conditions that might arise in any category for design evaluation.....the user is only clearly informed of what the boat was designed and built for in relation to certain parameters of significant wave heights and wind speeds....For category A, extreme conditions apply as they reflect that a vessel engaged on a long voyage might be subject to any conditions and should be designed accordingly, excluding abnormal weather conditions, for example ‘hurricanes’."

Which, unluckily, is not always true, as I think is the case of the Oceanis range.

Vega

05-24-2006, 11:24 AM

Are you trying to do this personal? I'm beginning to think you do not accept criticisms...:)

What criticisms? You have said in this thread:

With all respect let me tell you I find this discussion quite futile. I've calculated how much it costs me every mackerel I fish and the figure goes up to 30 Euros a piece. And this only taking in account operational costs!....:D

And then you keep coming up with things that have nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
I have said it several times, if you want to discuss what an oceangoing boat is, open a thread about it and let me accomplish the purpose of this thread.

From the RCD commented, as issued by the RSG:
" For category A, extreme conditions apply as they reflect that a vessel engaged on a long voyage might be subject to any conditions and should be designed accordingly, excluding abnormal weather conditions, for example ‘hurricanes’."
Which, unluckily, is not always true, as I think is the case of the Oceanis range.

About this, I don’t know what you are talking about, but what the legislation says is this:

Directive 2003/44/EC amended in 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC
Definition of Boat Design Category A:

"A. Ocean: Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4 m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient.";

Of course they don’t define abnormal, but that means that it is what is not normal, and if you have a look at the boats that are approved as Class A boats by that directive, it is easy to understand that abnormal means really bad weather:

Some Class A Benetau sailboats ( approved in accordance with that directive):

First 31,7 (big rig, with a D. of 3750kg), Oceanis 343, oceanis 373, Oceanis 393 and so on.

As you can see, the Oceanis 393 (D – 7780 kg) is not even an entry Class A boat. (of course you know this already and that’s why I don’t understand what is your point.):rolleyes:

Of course, you can dispute the rules that determine Class A boats, and I would welcome that. You have just to open a thread about that.

Anyway, regarding the Oceanis 39, it is not only the EC authorities who say that it is an Oceangoing boat. All specialized press has said that, you can see, for instance what has been published by Sailing On-Line, the electronic version of Sailing Magazine:

“The new 393 is a midrange model from the Beneteau Series, which is different from the performance-oriented boats in the First Series and the commodious cruisers from the Center Cockpit Series. The aft-cockpit Beneteau Series includes the 311, 331, 361, 411 and 473, with the 393 patterned after the latter. Designed by Berret/Racoupeau, the 393 is well-proportioned and versatile, capable of extended offshore passages and pleasing daysails, which just may be the most challenging type of boat to design. …….
Jean Berret is no stranger to creating handsome, bluewater cruisers. He designed one of my favorites boats, the now 20-year-old First 38—a swift, capable boat that I sailed across the Atlantic years ago. The 393 has a more modern look….
It is safe to say that every year more Beneteaus cross oceans on their own bottoms than any other brand of boat…..
Overall I was impressed with the handling characteristics, thoughtful design and construction quality, especially because the 393 is quite attractively priced. … Still you won’t have to spend a fortune outfitting the boat after you buy it. …..

Stylish and well-built cruiser that can turn bluewater dreams into affordable realities".

Vega

05-24-2006, 07:32 PM

Vega - I will grant that to date you have all been unable to find a NEW motorboat of ocean going capability that compares with the Oceanis 39 on initial purchase price.
I will make two points.
1. If you buy a Nordhavn that costs vastly more than the Oceanins in the first instance, what will the resale be in 10 years time? It may well be that on depreciation alone the Nordhavn will come out in front....

I have checked that, and I confess that I was a little surprised and that is not the first time in this thread.

I could not find Nordhavns with 10 years (suppose they are not that old) .The best I could do was to see the depreciation between a 2005 and a 2000 boat. The depreciation was rather low, only 23%.

Regarding the Oceanis 393, the boat was only produced in 2001. The previous model was the 380 and for that year it costs around 140 000 euros. As the 393 is a bigger boat I will consider, for this comparison 150 000 euros.

The 27% depreciation of the Oceanis is not bad, but worse than the one on the Nordhavn (I was convinced the depreciation of the motorboats was always bigger than the one on sailboats).

But on the other way, the 4 years depreciation on the Nordhavn corresponds to 148 700USD and the one on the Oceanis to 57 004USD, so even if in the Nordhavn the depreciation is a little bit smaller, in the end the difference remains huge.

Of course, the Nordhavn has a superior build and finish, and I agree it is not aimed at the same market, but in what regards budget cruising and costs related with the initial price of the boat, the Oceanis will always be a boat a lot less expensive to own.

2. You say you are looking only at the budget end of the cruising spectrum. These people do not buy new boats. They have a given amount of money and go shopping for whatever they can afford. Therefore, I believe the CheoyLee vs Adams 12 is a valid comparison.

Yes, it is a valid comparison and it was the reason I chose to proceed with that. But you have to agree that if we pick a Cheoylee 36 and an Adams 12 from the same year, the Choylee will be more expensive (and regarding the oceanis, the Adams is a steel boat and a more expensive one).

The conclusion is that, as Vikendios had pointed out, for the same money you can buy a new Oceanis 393, or a good 10 year old motorboat and he should know, because he is just facing that option and it looks that he is going to opt for the 10 year old motorboat:

Dear Vega :My point is you can compare a 10 yr old GB 42 or 36 to a new Beneteau of the same size : The purchase price will be about the same. The emphasis is on 10 yr old vs. new. The 10 yr old will require more maintenance, but retired people have the time.

Vikendios

But if you choose to buy a 10 year old Oceanis, then to have a match in price, you will have to buy a 20 year old motorboat and so on.

So a motorboat will always be more expensive regarding initial costs.

To completely satisfy my curiosity it will remain one comparison to do.

The motorboat/sailboat comparison was made in the assumption that the sailboat would be making a yo-yo kind of cruising, I mean it would leave its home port in one direction and comes back the same way. It would also be cruising without time to spare, wind or no wind, against the wind, everyday.

So basically it goes with the wind and returns against the wind, or vice-versa. That’s the kind of cruising that I do, not because I wouldn’t prefer otherwise, but because my time is limited and the beautiful spots are far away.
For this kind of cruising I have considered 1/3 of the time sailing, 1/3 of the time motorsailing and 1/3 of the time motoring.

I want to do the calculations for the time in my life when I will be free for going with the wind, I mean doing extensive cruising without going back, at least the same way. I mean, one cruise I want to make is going from Portugal to Madeira, Canary Islands, Caribbean, Central America, North America, Azores and Portugal. This can be made 70% sailing, 20% motorsailing and 10 % motoring…..I know, I know, it can be made only sailing, but I will not go that far.:p

Willallison

05-24-2006, 08:02 PM

Not that it really makes any difference, but the Adams 12 is an FRP boat, not steel.

To choose one form of boating over another based solely on cost would be, I think a mistake. It seems that you lean towards sailboats. Buy a sailboat.
I'm a powerboat guy - I would never buy a sailboat, regardless of any cost difference. That's not to say that I think powerboats are better than sailboats - it's just horses for courses....

Vega

05-24-2006, 08:53 PM

Not that it really makes any difference, but the Adams 12 is an FRP boat, not steel. ....

My mistake, there are a lot of them made of steel.

To choose one form of boating over another based solely on cost would be, I think a mistake. It seems that you lean towards sailboats. Buy a sailboat.
I'm a powerboat guy - I would never buy a sailboat, regardless of any cost difference. That's not to say that I think powerboats are better than sailboats - it's just horses for courses....

Of course, and this thread had shown (at least to me) that for most of users, what is more relevant to cruising costs it is not the type of propulsion, but the initial cost of the boat (providing that the motorboats are from one type that is rather unusual between motorboaters, if any relevant cruising mileage is to be considered).

The exception is really extensive cruising, where a sailboat will be significantly less costly to own. But it is also true that the percentage of sailors that do that is really insignificant comparing with the total number of cruising sailboats.

But you get me wrong; if I could I would have a sailboat and a motorboat. I like both, and most of all I like cruising. During more than 10 years in my life I have raced motorcycles, so you can imagine that I like engines and speed.

The trouble is that while cruising in a trawler at 9 knots, you fell that you are barely moving. If you are doing 9 knots in a sailboat, you fell that you are going fast.:)

I guess that if I ever own a motorboat it will not be a trawler, but one of those nice looking semi-planing boats that can go at 18 knots without wasting a lot of fuel, and can cruise in an economical way at 10 knots. Of course, I know that with one of those I will be limited to coastal cruising, but who cares, I will have the sailboat for bluewater cruising.:p

Ari

05-24-2006, 09:37 PM

Thank you Vega for starting this..I do really love the lively discussion.I feel I had benifited from this thread.love both type of boat..sail and engine.The power boat is a practical way to move around daily..the sail boat /motor sailor is the mother boat..and we plan to circumnavigate with it.Can't afford to power 100% around the world..too costly for us.

Guillermo

05-25-2006, 01:30 AM

What criticisms? You have said in this thread.....
Mmmmm, I see you really made it personal....But it doesn't make sense to me you're angry only because of that. Probably I have offended you in some other way....:(

With that post I was trying to say, in a funy way (forgive me for that), something similar to what you say: "Of course, and this thread had shown (at least to me) that for most of users, what is more relevant to cruising costs it is not the type of propulsion, but the initial cost of the boat...." And, agreeing with Willallison, I dare to add that the main reason to choose a type of boat is mostly a matter of personal preferences (within the amount of money you can spend, of course). Buying and maintaining a boat is most of the times a kind of irrational compulsion, as ....love?....:)

About the Class A discussion and the like, I was mentioning the Recreational Craft Sector Group's Comments to the Directive. This group is conformed by Notified Bodies, boatbuilders and designers and also regularly issue the "RSG Guidelines", a working tool for boatbuilders and designers. They discuss the Directive and propose corrections when necessary to CE authorities. You can find more info at: http://www.rsg.be/

From Ted Brewer's pages:
"....The boat is acceptable if the result of the calculation is 2.0 or less but, of course, the lower the better. For example, a 12 meter yacht of 60,000 lbs displacement and 12 foot beam will have a CSF Number of 1.23, so would be considered very safe from capsize. A contemporary light displacement yacht, such as a Beneteau 311 (7716 lbs, 10'7" beam) has a CSF number of 2.14. Based on the formula, while a fine coastal cruiser, such a yacht may not be the best choice for ocean passages."

I will open a thread on oceangoing capability, as you suggest, to discuss all this thoroughly.

Cheers.

fcfc

05-25-2006, 04:30 AM

I could not find Nordhavns with 10 years (suppose they are not that old) .The best I could do was to see the depreciation between a 2005 and a 2000 boat. The depreciation was rather low, only 23%.
...
(I was convinced the depreciation of the motorboats was always bigger than the one on sailboats)

Not, no it depends of motorboat and sailboats.

see http://www.kadeykrogen.com/newsletters/PDF/2004_01.pdf

Krogen has built a krogen 42, similar to nordhavn 42, but which has been produced much more longer than the nordhavn.

"The average original sale price of a late model Krogen 42’ (1995-1998) was approximately $335,000. Today, similar vintage vessels are selling (not asking, but actually selling) for well over $400,000. Even if we take the conservative approach outlined above, we still see modest appreciation in a relatively new yacht."

The conclusion is that, as Vikendios had pointed out, for the same money you can buy a new Oceanis 393, or a good 10 year old motorboat and he should know, because he is just facing that option and it looks that he is going to opt for the 10 year old motorboat:

So a motorboat will always be more expensive regarding initial costs.

No, i disagree. You can buy a NEW motorboat for the price of a new Oceanis 393. It will juts not have the same size and accomodation. You put emphasis on size/accomodation and ocean capabilities, but other may perfectly prefer speed, ease of handling and low draft in first.

FAST FRED

05-25-2006, 05:37 AM

"The average original sale price of a late model Krogen 42’ (1995-1998) was approximately $335,000. Today, similar vintage vessels are selling (not asking, but actually selling) for well over $400,000. Even if we take the conservative approach outlined above, we still see modest appreciation in a relatively new yacht."

As governments love debt , and have the built in ability to destroy their currencys , so they can pay back on the Cheap, you must do any calculations in "Constant Dollars".

Most dealer markup is on the order of 20% plus what ever the comissioning and electrics , and their insallation , will not be recovered at sell time.

FAST FRED

Vega

05-25-2006, 05:46 AM

No, i disagree. You can buy a NEW motorboat for the price of a new Oceanis 393. It will juts not have the same size and accomodation. You put emphasis on size/accomodation and ocean capabilities, but other may perfectly prefer speed, ease of handling and low draft in first.

Of course, regarding cruising we have to compare what is comparable and what is comparable is the interior space of a boat and its seaworthiness. It only makes sense to compare boats that fits the same criteria. Only then it makes sense to compare costs and initial price.

Seaworthiness, lots of interior space, economic operating costs and low initial price
are the main items for a budget cruiser.

Of course if you are a very rich man, you can prefer other criteria, but then it will not be about budget cruising and it doesn’t regard this thread.

About boats with less interior space, you can cruise in a 12 m open power boat, the ones long and narrow with a small interior cabin, doing 45knots and having a lot of fun. But that it is not the type of boat that it is fit to economical cruising neither to live in, for some extended periods.

So, if you think you have found a similar priced boat that compares with the Oceanis in the criteria that defines budget cruising, let us see that boat.

Even if the interior space is a bit smaller, please post it. Only then we can see what you are talking about.

fcfc

05-25-2006, 07:05 AM

Seaworthiness, lots of interior space, economic operating costs and low initial price are the main items for a budget cruiser.

Of course if you are a very rich man, you can prefer other criteria, but then it will not be about budget cruising and it doesn’t regard this thread.

I am not on the rich side. And I put safety first.
I only cruise in family. If *anything* happens to my in cruise, wife and daughter would be unable to do anything on a 40 ft sailboat. They will be able to handle a 30 ft powerboat.
I think you know what happened to E Tabarly, and in what conditions.
Also on Sept 1, 2003, you also heard the story of a 11 m sailboat sailed by 3 couples in force 7-8 with 3 meter waves, between Port Cros and Calvi. The 3 mens where on the deck, wifes in the cabin. The mens were swept by a wave. Wifes were barely able to call VFH only : result 3 drowned.

These are not boat problem, they are CREW problems. And anyone should buy a boat considering the crew that will handle it.

I can sail solo on a sailboat. I have done it young (on 30 ft sailboats). Now I have a family and I think it is just taking stupid risks for a very selfish pleasure.

Vega

05-25-2006, 05:34 PM

[QUOTE=fcfc]

Krogen has built a krogen 42, similar to nordhavn 42, but which has been produced much more longer than the nordhavn.

Fcfc quoting a publicity advertise from Krogen:

"The average original sale price of a late model Krogen 42’ (1995-1998) was approximately $335,000. Today, similar vintage vessels are selling (not asking, but actually selling) for well over $400,000. Even if we take the conservative approach outlined above, we still see modest appreciation in a relatively new yacht."
.

fcfc, you should look at publicity with more care. The depreciation of a car or of a boat is calculated by the amount of money that you have to put on top of your used car or boat to buy a new identical model from the same builder.

That’s how I have calculated the Oceanis and the Nordhavn depreciation, not referring to a 2006 model, but to used 2005 models. I have chosen to do so, because many times, the price of extras that you normally want in the boat can cost till 1/3 of the boat’s price, especially in the less expensive boats, like the Oceanis. That’s why you sometimes see used boats with one year costing more than new boats.

In 2005 or 2004 the Krogen 42 has been replaced by the 44. The price of a new 44 (2005 price) is between $645 000 and $780 000, depending on options and extras. That price has come up because the 39ft price has raised from $485 000 to $552 700 (2005-2006).

In that advertise, Krogen says that a used 42 from 1995-1998 will cost "well over $400 000".
That makes no sense…you can find in the market only two used boats from that period. One of them, a 1996 42ft for $312 255; the other, a 1997 42ft for $387 385. Two boats that are offered well below the advertised "well over $400 000".

I have made some calculations and the Krogen’s 42 depreciation is low and that signifies that is roughly the same as for the Nordhavns 40.
So, a 10 year old boat would have a depreciation of about 34%, and that means that depreciation, even being low, will be almost the same value of the price of a new Oceanis 393.
The used 10 years old Krogen’s 42 will cost about 34% more than a new Oceanis. Of course it is a bigger boat, If it was a comparable boat (a 36-38ft) I guess it would cost the same as a new Oceanis.

Vega

05-25-2006, 07:05 PM

Fcfc one of the good things of this forum is that there are a lot of different people in each thread. I mean people that are interested in dinghies, people that is interested in ships, people that are interested in motorboats and in sailboats. I think that this broadens the perspectives and makes discussions a lot more interesting

In this thread I am not defending sailboats against motorboats. I like both and I am trying to be as impartial as possible. I feel that you have a position of antagonism, regarding what I am posting, assuming I am defending sailboats, but I don’t want to defend anything, nor be against anybody.

I have taken into account what you have posted about different types of engines and different maintenance costs in all the calculations I have made regarding the comparisons between sail boats and motorboats, and I am enjoying this discussion and learning a lot in the process, but I am not opposing anybody, only trying to analyze budget cruising costs.

I am not on the rich side. And I put safety first.
I only cruise in family. If *anything* happens to my in cruise, wife and daughter would be unable to do anything on a 40 ft sailboat. They will be able to handle a 30 ft powerboat.

These are not boat problem, they are CREW problems. And anyone should buy a boat considering the crew that will handle it.

I can sail solo on a sailboat. I have done it young (on 30 ft sailboats). Now I have a family and I think it is just taking stupid risks for a very selfish pleasure.

I will agree with you on this. A sailboat, versus the vast majority of motorboats of the same size and weight, has such a bigger margin of safety that the limiting factor is the crew.

Fact is that you need to know a lot more to sail than to motor.

That only means that you need to learn and there are a lot of good schools that can teach interested people, not to speak of friends, clubs etc.

Of course, if you prefer motorboats it is natural that you opt for one, regardless all other factors. But you are saying that you opt because it is safer, and you being an experienced sailor that doesn’t make sense to me.

Nowadays it is a lot easier to sail solo a 40ft sailboat than it was sailing solo a 30ft 20 years ago.

You have reliable autopilots with self- tacking systems and you don’t need to leave the cockpit to reef the sails (all cables go there), and with a lazy-jack it is a child’s play to put the sail down.

About the crew, for a 40 ft, you don’t need any (you are enough).
For the kids, there is not a better learning machine than a sailboat (and I am a teacher). My kids have learned very soon how to handle the boat and the responsibility of being in charge and that has made them more confident and self-assured.
All the family does the drill of catching “the man overboard” every year, before the cruising season. They do that only using sails and one at the time, handling the boat solo. My younger soon is able to do that since 10 years of age and even my wife, that hates to take care of the boat, has no problem in doing that.

It is not a selfish pleasure. All the family loves cruising and sailing.

About risks, as I have said, if you know what you are doing, a sailboat the same size and weight of a motorboat, given the same circumstances, is a safer boat. But as you have said, it is necessary a more skilled sailor.
You being a skilled sailor it doesn’t make sense to say that a sailboat is, for your family, more dangerous to use for cruising than a motorboat.

The risk factor is on the skipper. If you are a good skipper you will not endanger your family in a motorboat neither in a sailboat. You have to know the limitations of your boat and your own and act accordingly.

Vega

05-26-2006, 06:22 PM

I want to do the calculations for the time in my life when I will be free for going with the wind, I mean doing extensive cruising without going back, at least the same way. I mean, one cruise I want to make is going from Portugal to Madeira, Canary Islands, Caribbean, Central America, North America, Azores and Portugal. This can be made 70% sailing, 20% motorsailing and 10 % motoring…..I know, I know, it can be made only sailing, but I will not go that far.:p

For this one I have considered a Nordhavn 40 and an Oceanis 393, both with a standard engine.

First some data regarding the calculations:

Sailboat:

Engine: maintenance – 1,5euros/h, consumption 3L/h
Depreciation of sails – 1600euros (8000 X 2/10)
Other maintenance costs - 600euros.

Motorboat:

Engine: maintenance – 0,825euros/h, consumption 8,34L/h

Distance (including cruising around): 13 000 m

Operating costs, (not including marinas and taxes):

Sailing boat:

5450euros or 227euros/month.

Motorboat:

19 858euros or 827 euros/month.

(Considering a two year period for the voyage).

Conclusion:

The 14 408 euros difference in costs are not really significant, considering the price of a new Oceanis 393 (around 190 000 euros). Or the equivalent price of a 10 year old Nordhavn .

Regarding costs, if you do a voyage like this once in a lifetime, it will not really matter if you do that in a 10 year old Nordhavn or in a new Oceanis. The difference it will be only about 8% of the initial cost of the boat.

Of course, if you are one of those lucky guys who has retired and are cruising extensively, buy a sailboat.

If you cruise like that for 10 years, the difference will be of 72 040 euros (US$ 91 760) and that is almost half of the boat value….But the sailors that can do and actually do that are very few, so if you are not or will not be one of those lucky ones, regarding costs, it will not really matter if you have a new Oceanis or a 10 year old ocean trawler.;)

Of course, this type of motorboat is a very, very small percentage of the total number of “cruising” motorboats over 40ft and these numbers are only applicable to this particular type.:)

Vikendios

05-27-2006, 08:45 AM

Dear Vega, Dear Guillermo :

You repeatedly make the point that this thread is about the economy of sail vs motor, rather than any other factor.

I would add that the dollar and cents (or euros and cents) discussion here is equally relevant at the 45-55 feet range as it is as the 35-45 range. There are quite a few professions or business people who love the sea and can afford up to a 50 footer (sail or motor, new or used) but cannot afford 1000 euros a day on fuel, nor the use of a paid help (and therefore are able to handle their boat by themselves or with their life companion), and they will make exactly the same calculations as have been made here.

Very often they sailed on much smaller boats when younger and less affluent, and have built up a lot of experience - or prejudices...

OK, so it describes me.

I still believe that never will a decision of sail vs motor will be made on economy alone, or even first. It is a question of lifestyle, and has everything to do with either comfort ( a 32 ft motor boat is comparable to a 44 ft sailing boat in that respect, at least in harbour) or seamanship.

I also believe that long ocean passages are better risked on small boats when you are young and fit than when you are retired and.. arthritic. I did my share of ocean passage making when I was 20, I wouldn't do it today.

But in the end safety should come before economy when chosing a boat. I do not think this thread should encourage newcomers to believe thay can 'drive' accross the pond on a 40 ft motorboat, albeit from Nordhavn; and if sailors can and should do it on a good 39 ft 'rag' boat, they'd better be very experienced and able to fix anything, including themselves.

Vikendios.

PS : Lovely F 10 storm that was in July 2000 off W Ireland. The whole tunny fishing fleet from your rias had rushed for shelter in Dingle, on their beautiful rod and line boats that looked like they could face anything - but wisely wouldn't.
And like an idiot I was roughing it outside - on a sailboat.

Vega

05-27-2006, 11:47 AM

:
I still believe that never will a decision of sail vs motor will be made on economy alone, or even first. It is a question of lifestyle, and has everything to do with either comfort ( a 32 ft motor boat is comparable to a 44 ft sailing boat in that respect, at least in harbour) or seamanship.

Vikendios, I agree with you, except in what regards comfort on board in port, or perhaps I don’t know what 32ft motor boat you are talking about. Remember we are not talking here of cruiser racers, but of cruising sailboats. Take a look at the interiors of some 42 and 44ft sailboats.

I would like you to post a single 32ft motorboat interior that has the slightest comparison in what regards comfort.

Vega

05-27-2006, 01:13 PM

Dear Vega, Dear Guillermo :

You repeatedly make the point that this thread is about the economy of sail vs motor, rather than any other factor.

I would add that the …) discussion here is equally relevant at the 45-55 feet range as it is as the 35-45 range. There are quite a few professions or business people who love the sea and can afford up to a 50 footer (sail or motor, new or used) but cannot afford 1000 euros a day on fuel, nor the use of a paid help (and therefore are able to handle their boat by themselves or with their life companion), and they will make exactly the same calculations as have been made here.

I still believe that never will a decision of sail vs motor will be made on economy alone, or even first. It is a question of lifestyle, … or seamanship.

But in the end safety should come before economy when chosing a boat. .

Dear Vikendios,

I have never said this thread “is about the economy of sail vs motor, rather than any other factor”.

I have said, and quoting “this Thread… is about comparing costs of Budget cruising between Motorboats and sailboats”.

And the conclusion I have reached is that if you are not one of those sailors that are retired and cruise a lot, regarding total costs”it will not really matter if you have a new Oceanis or a 10 year old ocean trawler…” but “Of course, this type of motorboat (with a small engine) is a very, very small percentage of the total number of “cruising” motorboats over 40ft and these numbers are only applicable to this particular type”.
For the other 97% of motor cruising boats around, if they really cruise, regarding fuel costs, it will be another story.

But my friend, fact is that they don’t really cruise, so there is not a problem with fuel.:D

Even regarding sailingboats I had the opportunity to take a good look at a significant sample of the retired cruising community.

For 2 Years I had my boat in the best and most luxurious Portuguese marina, Lagos, on the South coast. The Marina is full, not of Portuguese boats, but of an international community of retired cruisers. The “rich” come just for the summer, the “poor” live all year in their boat.

They have big sailboats with engines as big as the ones that you have on those trawlers and they rarely sail. And I will bet that, when sailing, they will motor most of the time and will only use their highly mechanized sails when there is almost no wind. I guess they are not very experienced sailors, but regarding safety, that is not important, because they don’t use their boat as a sailboat.

And you can bet that their boats have very good and comfortable interiors.:p

They have chosen to buy comfortable and safe sailboats that could be used as economical motorboats.

Unlike economical motorboats (regarding fuel consumption) there are plenty of these sailboats around and they will cost new a little less than a 40 Nordhavn, or, with 10 years, the price of a new Oceanis.

So, in the end, if you want comfort, it will always be expensive and a question of style and personal preference, being the initial cost of the boat the most significant.

I didn’t go that way, because that can hardly be called budget cruising, and in the end it is more about having a floating apartment somewhere than really cruising.:p

Vikendios

05-28-2006, 04:59 AM

FAST FRED

05-28-2006, 05:41 AM

"They have chosen to buy comfortable and safe sailboats that could be used as economical motorboats."

This is probably because "bragging rights" at the local bar are better as a "sailor" than as a "marine motorist".

However sailboats are usually far easier to push at low cruise speeds as the hulls are optimised for such work.

Unfortunatly too many marine motorists ask about How Fast Will She Go ? so the add department selects a semi displacement boat optomized for far faster cruise speeds than any cruiser is willing to purchase fuel for.
The higher speed optimization kills tha low speed with economy , found on most cruising sailboats.And the BIG engine does poorly at 10% loading.

Lose , Lose!

FAST FRED

Vega

05-28-2006, 02:42 PM

Dear Vega :

OK, so we agree on most everything, including safety first.

But I'll stick to my point about comfort on a 32 ft trawler compared to a 44 ft sailing cruiser (I used to own a Benita 435). Look at the old GB 32 : plenty of pics of them on www.yachtworld.com listings. Look at the large flat uncluttered cockpit, with space for a couple of recliners. Seen any of these on a sailboat ? Look at the flybridge : 30 % extra space, non-existant on a sail boat.
Vikendios

Dear Vikendios:

About the GB 32, it is a nice boat and a big one for a 32ft, but a small one nonetheless. The galley is really small and the only cabin also, and the saloon really does not compare (some of the 44ft sailboats have even two living spaces, one up, other down.

I understand what you say about the outside space, but it is only a kind of different space and in a 44ft sailing boat there is a lot of deck area.
About the space in the flybridge, you don't use that for living or do you?

One thing is the space, other is the quality of space and that is more important. Some time ago, after a club race, I was invited to have a drink in the boat that finished ahead of me. It was a brand new First 47.7. The owner was quite proud of his new boat and of the big interior, but all I could think of was that I would feel a lot more comfortable in a Malo or Najad 40 and also how the hell could they move in the boat at sea, with the boat heeled (the space was huge and I didn’t see any grab points).

In this I agree with you, and also that the Grand Banks is a quality boat. I can even understand that you find it more comfortable (due to a superior quality) regarding your old Beneteau, but if you compare it with a similar quality 44ft sailboat…

Regarding high quality 32ft sailboats, take a look at this boat and tell me what you think. Of course it is a different type of space, but I don’t see that it has less space than the GB 32, if you exclude the flybridge, that you don’t use for living. The galley and the cabin are a lot bigger, not to speak of the small workshop (see under panorama).

http://www.sirius-werft.de/EN/sirius.html

Vega

05-28-2006, 03:16 PM

This is probably because "bragging rights" at the local bar are better as a "sailor" than as a "marine motorist".
....
Unfortunatly too many marine motorists ask about How Fast Will She Go ?
FAST FRED[/QUOTE]

God point.

Regarding motorboaters, if you say 15 knots they will look at you with pity thinking ...poor fellow, this guy has no money to have a decent boat, (a really good boat is one that has a top speed of + 30knots:rolleyes: ).

Regarding sailingboats, they will ask you the boat size and about the crew. If you say 50ft and I handle it alone (even if you never sail) they will think, this guy is really a good sailor:p

fcfc

05-29-2006, 04:27 AM

A 1965 GB32 may have the space of a 44ft 1965 sailboat. But I do not think it compare to today boats.

For the new entry level GB, do not put too much hope. The crowd it will probably compare is:
http://www.mainship.com/models/34trawler/34TrawSpecs.html
http://www.nordictugs.com/32_specs.cfm?showNav=models
http://www.camanomarine.com/c31.htm
http://www.halvorsenboats.com.au/islandgypsy_32.html
http://www.chbyachts.com/index.html

The two later are more or less clones of the original GB 32. But with more power.

Remember too the no longer produced nordhavn 35: http://www.nordhavn.com/35/overview.php4 only produced for a few years (only two dozen built as per nordhavn site).
They once stated they tried to sell a 12 kts cruise boat where the market demands a 18 kts cruise speed.

So my own guess of a new GB entry level would be more like : http://www.halvorsenboats.com.au/halvorsen_32.html with a look perhaps more "traditionnal", and 300+ hp for cruise speed between 15-18 kts and top in the 22-25 kts. It will be a planning boat disguised in trawler look. Not something economical to operate like http://www.nelsontrawlers.com/willard%2030.htm (BTW, production stopped long ago)

Vikendios

05-29-2006, 07:06 AM

john.G

05-29-2006, 08:54 AM

Guillermo

05-29-2006, 10:08 AM

..Can small (32 to 40 ft) trawlers with planing hulls and twin 200 / 300 HP engines also (emphasis on also) troll reasonably efficiently at hull speed when max fuel economy is wanted ?
Nope. But, who cares...?
What is happening is that all the discussion on economy and fuel efficiency seems to worry everybody but, at the end of the day, only a few really care....Most of the people go on buying boats being their priorities things like price (!), dreams (!), styling, proudness, biggest possible interior room & comfort, real time available to enjoy the boat, coast geography & local weather, skills, etc, etc. My feeling is that fuel efficiency only comes in a sixth or seventh place, at its best, for the huge majority. And seaworthiness also.

Vega

05-29-2006, 10:15 AM

Interesting thread. and it's taken a damm long time to read it through.Can we throw this into it?

I used to run a Tasmanian crayboat that had been converted across to a shark netter. 48' round bilge aft weelhouse, hull similar in shape to a north sea trawler. Operating area was the Coral Sea out to 200nm. She carried 4000litres of diesel for an operational range of 6000 nm. Main power was a 120 HP class A (heavy commercial) Gardiner. Speed 8 knots. Also had a mast and sails good for about 4.5 to5 knots (but keeps the insurance down)

There are quite a number of boats of this type that have been converted across to pleasure usage around Australia. And while they might be ugly by production standards they do have a sort of charm about them. And you can buy a good second hand one for about 120k AUD. with current electronics and survey and watermaker already fitted. Figure on 40k AUD to convert the fishhold to liveaboard space.

Fast passagemaker - NO. Cheap, safe passagemaker - YES.

Hello John,

Certainly we can join your boat to the discussion, but I live on the other side of the planet and I don’t know what a Tasmanian crayboat is. I had a look at the net. Is it one of this kind ?

As all seagoing professional small craft it means business, and professional oceangoing crafts will normally out perform pleasure crafts, regarding safety and seaworthiness.

But if you compare the initial price of a professional boat with a pleasure one, the professional will be a lot more expensive.

Of course if you can find one in the second hand market at that price, it will be an interesting choice, if you like it simple. Because if you really put an interior on that boat to match the quality of the living interior of a boat of that size, with all the amenities that come with it, you will spend 10 times more than the amount you have envisaged for it.

What you have is a hull and an engine, and in a pleasure boat the interior costs 4 to 5 times the price of the hull, and comparing with that, the value of the engine is not so high.

But of course, if what counts for you is cruising, and if you can pass without the commodities of a comfortable and luxurious interior, certainly it will be a good option.:)

I have nothing against it. When I was younger, I have cruised extensively, I mean living aboard for about 45 days in a year, in a boat that was just a bare hull without any interior, nor electricity and practically without an engine, and I have lived there some of the happiest moments of my life.

But, regarding this thread and the general market for motorboat cruising, I guess that we are talking here less of cruising extensively and more of living aboard. And normally people that can afford a cruising boat (unless they are rich) are no longer young and want a decent level of comfort while enjoying their holidays or retirement.;)

fcfc

05-29-2006, 10:24 AM

What are the downsides of having a GB-type hull when cruising extensively at hull speed, while keeping the option of occasional legs at twice or three times hull speed ?

Who can cruise at 7 kts for 10 hours when the boat is capable of 21 kts ?:D

Vega

05-29-2006, 02:17 PM

A 1965 GB32 may have the space of a 44ft 1965 sailboat. But I do not think it compare to today boats.

....They once stated they tried to sell a 12 kts cruise boat where the market demands a 18 kts cruise speed.

So my own guess of a new GB entry level would be ... 300+ hp for cruise speed between 15-18 kts and top in the 22-25 kts. It will be a planning boat disguised in trawler look. Not something economical to operate like http://www.nelsontrawlers.com/willard%2030.htm (BTW, production stopped long ago)

fcfc, this time I completely agree with you.
These are the kind of boats that motorcruisers want. That’s why all new produced boats (trawler like) have more or less similar (high) power requirements.

Perhaps a small precision, those are not properly planing boats, but semi-planing boats.

Who can cruise at 7 kts for 10 hours when the boat is capable of 21 kts ?:D
Yes, of course, and why cruise at 21kts if your boat is capable of 36 kts?

Vega

05-29-2006, 03:33 PM

Smaller trawlers and speed

I think fcfc makes a very interesting point when speculating about a future incarnation of the GB 32 or 36, when he says :

'It will be a planing boat disguised in trawler look. Not something economical to operate'

Maybe this is the stuff of a new thread, but is it possible to really market a smaller trawler limited to economical hull speed, which for a 32 footer will be around 5 knots ?

There is no way they're gonna cross oceans (too small) so range at affordable fuel cost is not the issue. And at 5 knots you will be pretty limited in your extended coastal cruising options, and you will not have the speed to run for shelter either.

So I think GB is right that small trawlers need to plane, and Beneteau (see the Swift 42) thinks the same way. .

It is not only Beneteau that think the same way. Almost all the market thinks the same way and that means that motorboat cruisers think that way, because they are the ones who make the market.;)

And trawlers capable of crossing oceans are so rare that we can ignore that very small niche market. The big new “modern” trawlers with their huge engines would not have the autonomy for a crossing.

And no, we don’t need a new thread, because this thread is about mass market boats, budget cruising market boat trends , sailboats and motorboats, and the comparative costs of those options.:)

You don’t want to discuss very fast and wasteful cruiser motorboats but relatively economical motorboats that can cruise at a higher speed than a sailing boat, and that is what the market wants, even the ones that are really concerned with the fuel costs, the ones I call budget cruisers.

I have to say that if I cruise in a motorboat I will not cruise at the speed of a sailboat. Motoring for 12, sometimes 24 hours at 6,5 knots is BORING.:P The fun part of a sailboat is when you sail, preferably with lots of wind. A motorboat without the fun of sailing and without the speed advantage is a very boring boat. But that is only my personal taste.

So, when I have time I will see about costs of cruising in one of those new trawlers that fcfc had posted.;)

Now what I am really interested in is the following :

Can small (32 to 40 ft) trawlers with planing hulls and twin 200 / 300 HP engines also (emphasis on also) troll reasonably efficiently at hull speed when max fuel economy is wanted ? So the owner keeps all the options, and has it both ways ?

What are the downsides of having a GB-type hull when cruising extensively at hull speed, while keeping the option of occasional legs at twice or three times hull speed ? Why should it be much less economical to operate than a pure displacement hull, except for the initial added cost of bigger engine(s) which one should eventually recoup on sale if only for the added 'marketing' value ?

I agree with Guillermo on this. A semi-displacement hull is not efficient at hull speeds and it is also less efficient at planing speeds than a really planing hull.:(

The only type of boat that can do both things relatively well is the long and narrow hull (with little interior space), and not the trawler type( I am not talking of planing speeds, but of speeds between 15 and 18 kts).

A 300hp engine will also not be efficient at low revs. A 100hp engine running at its optimal rpm will be a lot more efficient regarding fuel consumption.

The economical difference in operating costs, between one of those relatively economical semi-displacement boats and a true efficient displacement hull has to do with the number of miles you cruise each year.

If you cruise few miles, then a semi-displacement boat will be a better choice because it will have more value in the used boat market (almost nobody wants low power trawler motorboats). If you cruise a significant number of miles we will have to make some calculations to see what is the relevance of fuel costs (and maintenance of bigger engines) in the global costs.:cool:

Vega

05-29-2006, 05:58 PM

Mmmmm, I see you really made it personal....But it doesn't make sense to me you're angry only because of that. Probably I have offended you in some other way....:(

.

No Guillermo, nothing personal and you have not offended me. I was only pissed at your poor aim, regarding the subject of the thread. You are shooting a lot better now.:D

“Quote: Originally Posted by Vikendios
..Can small (32 to 40 ft) trawlers with planing hulls and twin 200 / 300 HP engines also (emphasis on also) troll reasonably efficiently at hull speed when max fuel economy is wanted ? “

Nope. But, who cares...?
What is happening is that all the discussion on economy and fuel efficiency seems to worry everybody but, at the end of the day, only a few really care....Most of the people go on buying boats being their priorities things like price (!), dreams (!), styling, proudness, biggest possible interior room & comfort, real time available to enjoy the boat, coast geography & local weather, skills, etc, etc. My feeling is that fuel efficiency only comes in a sixth or seventh place, at its best, for the huge majority. And seaworthiness also.

I guess that you are right regarding most of the boat owners. Most of them hardly use their boats.

But for the ones that make some thousand of miles/year, (and that are the ones that cruise), you can bet that for a cruiser motorboater, fuel consumption is not the sixth or seventh priority, but is between the 3 first ones. Of course you probably are right if we are talking of a rich man but this thread is not about those.

Consumption of a 40/42ft cruising motorboats can vary between 0,6L/mile to 7L/mile.

Giving my annual cruising mileage, that will give in fuel costs, for the first one, 1500 euros, for the second 17 500 euros.

My complete cruising season for the four of us, including everything, cost me only a fraction of the cost of fuel wasted by the faster boat, and sometimes I think I am spending too much money cruising….:(

By the way, what is your annual cruising mileage and where will you cruise this season?:)

john.G

05-29-2006, 07:52 PM

Vega,
you are completely right about the costs of fittng out a hull as a percentage of the total. I was talking about 4 berths and a 15 cum beer fridge not a floating bordello:)

But what I was getting at was the running costs. The answer to going further cheaper is not about increasing horsepower, it's about being able to swing a bigger prop. A slow reving marine diesel swinging a big prop is cheaper to run then an high HP automotive conversion that runs at 3000 rpm hooked up to a smaller prop that gives the same output in terms of thrust.

It's a matter of initial outlay versus ongoing savings in terms of fuel and maintenance. For most private vessels, the cost of heavier shafts and bigger props is a one off, as it takes a long time to wear them out. And I think that as fuel costs continue to rise a segment of the market will realise this.

Enjoying your debate.

john.G

05-29-2006, 09:42 PM

Vega,
Picture of similar vessel currently for sale locally. This ones a 42 footer built 1988 (carvel hull) in current survey. asking price $85k AUD including fishing gear

fcfc

05-30-2006, 08:22 AM

But what I was getting at was the running costs. The answer to going further cheaper is not about increasing horsepower, it's about being able to swing a bigger prop. A slow reving marine diesel swinging a big prop is cheaper to run then an high HP automotive conversion that runs at 3000 rpm hooked up to a smaller prop that gives the same output in terms of thrust.

The problem is not so clear:

I once saw a technical/economical/marketing preliminary study (made by students/trainees, accounting and engeenering) for a small repair shipyard where the owner wanted to open a powerboat renting dept. The primary idea of the owner was : people rent sailboats, but some NEVER put sails on. Why not propose to theses customers slow powerboats at prices not too far sailboats rent prices. (A 33 ft planning powerboat is typically rented two to three time the price of a a 33 sailboat).

The boat envisaged was somewhat a crossover with a GB32 look (very classical and looking safe), nimbus 320 layout (2 sleeping cabins with dbl berths) and Adria 1000 construction (money, money :D :D ).

From memory, a part of the study was comparing a D2 75 with 1:2.6 gearbox , 1"1/4 (30mm) shaft and 22" prop, with a 2300 rpm saab/iveco engine, 1:4 gearbox, 2"1/4 (60 mm) shaft and 34" prop.

For the props only, a 22" is in the 500€ range, a 34 is 2000€. (customer replacemet if damaged). Then the added draft. You need 20% clearance between hull and prop, and 10% between prop and skeg bottom. So draft increase is 12*1.3 = 15.6" (40 cm).
Difference in price for shaft, stern tube, bearings, stuffing box, skeg (for the higher draft), rudder (higher in front of a bigger prop). It is just a matter of higher initial cost.
Then for the engine. Difference in the engine price: not too much, but vibration/soudproofing a 1000 lbs engine at 2300 rpm is much more expensive than a 500 lbs 3000 rpm engine. This was magnified by the fact the D2 is turbo, so already has a dampening effect on intake/exhaust.
And there is a big price difference in the gearboxes, which are sized to torque, not power. As I recall, the big gearbox was in the 3000€ range, the small in the 1000€ range.

Then, the overall difference in ancillaries initial cost was around 7000€, for about similar power and engine price, but one prop at 1200 rpm, the other at 600 rpm. Perhaps in previous posts, I did not told the whole story. But this case is extreme since you even size skeg and rudder/rudder shaft according to prop diameter and have the same level of noise with either engine. Of course, bigger starting batteries and bottom engine stringers were taken in consideration for the heavy engine. At contrario, this means that the small engine ancillaries were sized at minimum for that engine.

For the maintance cost, it was not a real problem in that context. You seldom rent more than 10 years old boats. Rent companies buy new, rent them 5 to 10 years, and sell the boat then. This is to avoid big maintenance costs.
But the resale value is a concern. It was though that the resale value of the big stuff would not cover its initial price. A boat with ligth, but know D2 volvo and "inexpensive" equipment deprecates less (sells better) than a heavy, but marginal saab/iveco with "expensive" equipment around. The boat would be kind of a "noname" brand, since it would have been custom built for that application.

For fuel, it was easy. It is the customer who pays the fuel bill. Not the rent company. It was just checked that in both cases, fuel bill would be small compared to a week rent price. Estimated 30 hours motoring in a week.

Another part of this study was more marketing. The throttle lever of such a rent boat would be used at two positions only. idle and full throttle. The engine difference translated in speed, not fuel burn. The difference in speed was something between 8.5 kts at 17.5 l/h for the D2, and 9.3 kts at 16 l/h for the SAAB.( not sure for speeds ,remember one in the 8, the other in the 9, and diff less than, but near 1 kts). This was not juged relevant for any customer. What to say to customers if they want to save fuel : "slow down by one knot" and the boat, any engine, would be advertised as "7.5-8 kts cruise at 10 l/h. May vary with loading and weather conditions."

The final of this study for this application was the D2 would be far more economical (real terms : would generate higher profits).

And even for an individualy owned boat, you have to recover 8500€ (7000€ + sales taxes) in fuel costs. May be if you slow down to 8.5 kts, you would save 5l/h from the D2 engine. (a 30% saving) But at 1.2 € per liter, that's over 1400 hours or 12 000 nm. Nearly 5 years just to break even. And this only if the D2 engine owner chooses not slow down too.

PS: The project collapsed because the company owner put his money in what he though safer investments.

Vikendios

05-30-2006, 09:33 AM

Cost of running planing hulls at hull speed, compared to displacement hulls.

To answer my own questions, I have found that the power calculator featured in boatdiesel.com can be used. (Yes, I forked out the 25 bucks)

Taking the NordHavn 40 as an example ( LWL 35.5 ft, weight 50000 lbs) it takes 100 hp to achieve its hull speed of 8 Kt. If the same boat had an 'average' planing hull, it would take 114 HP to achieve the same speed. The penalty is therefore 14 % in HP, which we can assume to translate linearly into Litres of fuel or cost.

I believe a 14 % fuel cost penalty is not excessive.

PS for Guillermo : I can afford a GB, but because I cruise for three months in any given year and am now switching to power, fuel costs is to me a huge concern.

fcfc

05-30-2006, 10:23 AM

Taking the NordHavn 40 as an example ( LWL 35.5 ft, weight 50000 lbs) it takes 100 hp to achieve its hull speed of 8 Kt. If the same boat had an 'average' planing hull, it would take 114 HP to achieve the same speed. The penalty is therefore 14 % in HP, which we can assume to translate linearly into Litres of fuel or cost.

Beware of small calculators. By the way, what "average planning hull" weigths 50000 lbs for 35.5 lwl ? Are not you a bit out of range ?

In the previous post, for the same displacement hull, same speed, fuel burn can vary about 30% by just varying the prop from 22" 1200 rpm to 34" 600 rpm, the reduction ration, and the engine operating point. This study was done with a professionnal package. (navcad I think). This give you an idea of the possible error range.

And the third point : a planning hull with propulsion optimized for displacement speed and used at displacement speed is not the same as planning hull with propulsion optimized for top planning speed, but used at displacement speed. I do not think the calculator you used take this in account. It just assume that the propulsion you use has a "average/good" efficiency at the *single* speed you ask.

You can have also "real" figures here : http://www.beneteaupower.com/swift/performance.php
You can also have figures for a displacement hull http://www.kadeykrogen.com/39/index.php?page=performance_data
Both about same size, same weigth. 39 ft, 30 - 33000 lbs.
At 7 kts , the krogen 39 does 2620 nm. Corrected for tank capacities (both range = 90% tank) = 2620 * 395/700 = 1478 nm.
At 6.4, the beneteau trawler is 718 nm. at 7.4 kts it is 572 nm. Averaged at 7 kts, should make about 630 nm.

So the penalty is not 14%. It is 130%. One zero more.

Vega

05-30-2006, 02:48 PM

Vega,

But what I was getting at was the running costs. The answer to going further cheaper is not about increasing horsepower, it's about being able to swing a bigger prop. A slow reving marine diesel swinging a big prop is cheaper to run then an high HP automotive conversion that runs at 3000 rpm hooked up to a smaller prop that gives the same output in terms of thrust.

It's a matter of initial outlay versus ongoing savings in terms of fuel and maintenance. For most private vessels, the cost of heavier shafts and bigger props is a one off, as it takes a long time to wear them out. And I think that as fuel costs continue to rise a segment of the market will realise this.

.

The final of this study for this application was the D2 would be far more economical (real terms : would generate higher profits).

And even for an individualy owned boat, you have to recover 8500€ (7000€ + sales taxes) in fuel costs. May be if you slow down to 8.5 kts, you would save 5l/h from the D2 engine. (a 30% saving) But at 1.2 € per liter, that's over 1400 hours or 12 000 nm. Nearly 5 years just to break even. And this only if the D2 engine owner chooses not slow down too.

I have made those calculations and it seems to me that it is a lot worse than that, I mean regarding the mileage you have to do to compensate the difference in price between both engines. And that is consistent with the calculations I have made regarding the two types of engines on the sailboat/motorboat comparison (and it was you who has given me the data and information to work it out, thanks for that).

Regarding those two engines and the consumption and speed numbers you have posted, the volvo will waste 2,06L/M and the Saab 1,72L/M. The difference per mile would be 0,34L/M. The mileage necessary to cover that difference would be 25 000 miles, or 2941 hours on the volvo engine (considering only fuel costs).

(I am considering 1L=1euro)

Considering fuel costs and also cost differences in maintenance between the two types of engines (including the superior working life of the Saab engine), it would be necessary to cover 19 875 miles (2338 hours) to recover the higher initial price of the Saab.

Putting it in a simpler way. If you are going to do a lot less than 2338 hours with your boat (during all time you own it), you would lose money, but if are going to end up doing 15 000 hours in your engine (140 000m), then you would save 54 533 euros.

Regarding the dilemma, I will say that if you are a cruiser, even if you only make 10 000 miles before selling your motorboat it still remains a god deal. You would lose about 4000 euros, but that is probably meaningless compared with the value of the boat, but you have owned a safer boat (superior reliability of the Saab engine) and have had a lot less maintenance services and that means, less ******** and more time cruising.

If you are not a cruiser, go with the volvo. Regarding the charter business, it is not worth it.

Vega

05-30-2006, 03:20 PM

Cost of running planing hulls at hull speed, compared to displacement hulls.

Taking the NordHavn 40 as an example ( LWL 35.5 ft, weight 50000 lbs) it takes 100 hp to achieve its hull speed of 8 Kt. If the same boat had an 'average' planing hull, it would take 114 HP to achieve the same speed. The penalty is therefore 14 % in HP, which we can assume to translate linearly into Litres of fuel or cost.

I believe a 14 % fuel cost penalty is not excessive.

PS for Guillermo : I can afford a GB, but because I cruise for three months in any given year and am now switching to power, fuel costs is to me a huge concern.

Beware of small calculators. By the way, what "average planning hull" weigths 50000 lbs for 35.5 lwl ? Are not you a bit out of range ?

And the third point : a planning hull with propulsion optimized for displacement speed and used at displacement speed is not the same as planning hull with propulsion optimized for top planning speed, but used at displacement speed. I do not think the calculator you used take this in account. It just assume that the propulsion you use has a "average/good" efficiency at the *single* speed you ask.
.

fcfc has said it all, even if I don’t know if those 130% are for real. I believe that you have to study each case.

But regarding the example you give, a Nordhavn 40 and a GB 44 weigh about the same, and the GB, due to his much bigger waterline, will plane with less power than the Nordhavn. That boat is a semi-displacement trawler and it comes with two engines of 567hp, for a max speed of 25 kt and probably a cruising speed of about 18 knots. The Nordhavn, with an adequate hull would need at least the same power.

If you put one of those big engines pulling the Nordhavn at hull speed, how much more fuel would you be wasting, comparing with the 105 hp original engine?

Vikendios

05-30-2006, 03:30 PM

Trolling with trawlers (contd..)

To Fcfc :

I made the calculations again using the data on the GB 44 (non-Acert C5 at 505 Hp) and the near identical Kroger 44, and the results at 7.4 Kt is 1.8 M/g for the GB, and 3.4 M/g for the Krogen. Vous avez raison, mon cher, and I stand corrected.

But I still think this is quite an interesting and useful way of cruising for some longer legs on a GB 44.

Cordially,

Vikendios

fcfc

05-31-2006, 04:11 AM

Trolling with trawlers (contd..)

But I still think this is quite an interesting and useful way of cruising for some longer legs on a GB 44.

You have the same problem as military. They want to cruise economically (if can be said of military) and be able to go fast.
The way they found is to use 2 independant propulsion systems.
The hull is semi displacement.
For low cruise, they have diesel engines turning feathering (variable pitch) props. All optimized for displacement speed. The penalty they have compared to a true displacement is the hullform (15%) and prop (2-5%). I hope the hi speed hydrojet intake is closed : no drag.
For hi speed, they stop diesel engines, feather the slow speed props, and start the gas turbine coupled to the hydrojet, all optimized for hi speed. The penalty they have is only the drag of low speed shafts and feathered props.

john.G

05-31-2006, 06:54 AM

Seems to me this thread has evolved from power vs sail to becoming about different powerboat hulls. SO.....

My family have been involved with small commercial vessels since the 1920's and like most business operations we keep pretty detailed records. I'm prepared to do up some comparisons between different style's but it will take awhile to do so first I'd like to see if we could generally agree that the comparisons would be reasonably fair. I'll stick with vessels that are in my time in order that I can give first hand information as well as numbers rather then have to dust off old log books. I'll also stay away from commercial trawlers as the hydralic power requirements throw any fuel comparisons out the window.

Vessel 1: heavy displacement fishing vessel LOA 48' , 120HP slow revver
Vessel 2 : gamefishing charter vessel, LOA 40', 2 x 400 HP diesel
Vessel 3 : semi displacement fishing vessel LOA 35' 180 HP diesel

I'll rely on someone else to supply details of sail because I don't know enough about it.(well before my time)

What I propose to do is a detailed analysis of sea time, engine hours,maintenance costs, & fuel consumption over a period of years. these are commercial vessels and the hours will be excessive by any cruising standards (they don't make money at anchor) and the maintance schedules will reflect current commercial practice (replace it before it breaks rather then have downtime) but I think that will only help give a better idea of the true costs involved in each hull type.

I don't see how you can really make any other comparison as even if they were all the same length the displacements would really vary.

This may take a few days
John

Milan

05-31-2006, 08:01 AM

...penalty they have is only the drag of low speed shafts and feathered props.

End enormous increase in technical complexity and much higher initial cost and maintenance costs. No concern for the Navies but it doesn't seem very practical for yachts - such a boat would be very expensive to buy. Buyers of motor boats in this price category who want speed can afford to ride fast all the time.

Vega

05-31-2006, 09:23 AM

Seems to me this thread has evolved from power vs sail to becoming about different powerboat hulls. SO.....

…I'm prepared to do up some comparisons between different style's but it will take awhile to do so first I'd like to see if we could generally agree that the comparisons would be reasonably fair. Vessel 1: heavy displacement fishing.

vessel LOA 48' , 120HP slow revver
Vessel 2 : gamefishing charter vessel, LOA 40', 2 x 400 HP diesel
Vessel 3 : semi displacement fishing vessel LOA 35' 180 HP diesel

I'll rely on someone else to supply details of sail because I don't know enough about it.(well before my time)

What I propose to do is a detailed analysis of sea time, engine hours,maintenance costs, & fuel consumption over a period of years. these are commercial vessels and the hours will be excessive by any cruising standards (they don't make money at anchor) and the maintance schedules will reflect current commercial practice (replace it before it breaks rather then have downtime) but I think that will only help give a better idea of the true costs involved in each hull type.

I don't see how you can really make any other comparison as even if they were all the same length the displacements would really vary.

This may take a few days
John

Nice…I am waiting.

You are right about this thread; we are looking now to different types of hulls and different motorizations. We are still looking at cruising costs, but the ones regarding sailboats and motorsailors have already been made. Regarding motorboats there are a lot more different types, from displacement to semi-displacement till planing hulls, and a lot of different possibilities regarding power to the same boat.

So this part of the analysis is not done and your input is more than welcomed.

To fcfc, Ari and Vikendios (and this is extensive to all), may I suggest that we become more specific?

I mean, Vikendios is preparing to cruise three months in a year. I want to do that in about 5 years (and I am choosing a boat for it), Ari has dreams of extended cruising and fcfc…I don’t really know.
What I am proposing is to take a look at each personal criteria and cruising intentions and try to find in the market, new or used boats that best fit their needs, all things considered, initial price, operating costs and personal satisfaction.

Milan

05-31-2006, 01:29 PM

"…may I suggest that we become more specific?… personal criteria and cruising intentions and try to find…new or used boats that best fit their needs, all things considered, initial price, operating costs and personal satisfaction..."

Aside from buying, (new or old), I would ad building option.

Personal intentions - I'm planing to get a classic sailing ship master license - I'll take the first step on that long way in the autumn, beginning first year at this school: http://www.ezs.nl That will keep me busy for quite a vile.

So, I didn't take part in this discussion for my personal needs, I'm interested in (almost) everything what floats.

At some point in my life I would like to sail extensively on my personal boat. I'm most interested in the remote corners of our world. I have quite clear picture in my mind of the boat which I want. She will be very economical, basic, simple boat. Everything on the boat has to be simple enough to be repaired on the spot by myself. (That means reeeeally simple, as I'm not an exeptionaly capable and handy kind of guy, just ordinary wood / steel / sailcloth butcher and both- left-hands mechanic "skills"). She will be built in steel, double chine origami method. Rig will be a gaff schooner, very lean hull, (length 15 m beam 3 m). Load caring capacity about 1.5 - 2 tons max. Although built from heavy material she will have water line length / displacement ratio of the light displacement boat. (That's because of the light load, light interior and exeptionaly long water line). She will also carry plenty of sail area so she will be a fast boat in all circumstances.

But back to the topic, I'm very late with answers as usually but better late then never.

"...there are some misconceptions about the size of the engines of power boats. Some …put some ridiculous powerful engines in them, others think that what you need is a motor that can do just about ¾ of the hull speed of the boat.
It is not like that, the motor has to have a reserve of power to use when things go wrong , I mean when you are caught in bad weather. The power needed for that can easily triple the one you need for just carrying the boat at hull speed. In a motorboat you have to have that power, for safety..."

Hm…yes - for the "normal" powerboat. But I was talking about light displacement deck saloon sailing boat hull. She needs considerably less power because hull form is very efficient for displacement speeds and her hull and super structure (windage) are very low by powerboat standards. That's why she could move against the strong wind with a small engine. And if the wind is really strong you can always choose a curse at an angle to the wind as you would in a sailing boat.

"...Yes, but then it will not be a motorsailor, not a motorboat. And you will have to pay the rig and the sail maintenance..."

No, she wouldn't be a motorsailor, she would be a powerboat with a steadying sails. It's a big difference. If you don't expect a lot from your rig, just some steadying effect, some assistance to the engine and emergency back up in the case of engine failure, rig and sails can be very low, simple, and cheap. Solid wooden masts with a gaff sails attached with a pieces of rope.

Any way, I think that we can conclude that there isn't economical production powerboat at the market which can compete with a production sailing boats on the terms which you defined. But I think that it is possible to custom built one. Take a look at the Gerd's new design for example:

http://www.justmueller.com/boats/content/blogcategory/86/93/lang,en/
http://www.justmueller.com/boats/content/blogsection/9/99/lang,en/

Built in steel, origami way, I bet she will be very economical. By the way, talking about origami, there is now DVD available of the building of the BS 36. It really is unbelievably fast building method, video makes that very clear: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats

Milan

Vega

05-31-2006, 02:25 PM

"…may I suggest that we become more specific?… personal criteria and cruising intentions and try to find…new or used boats that best fit their needs, all things considered, initial price, operating costs and personal satisfaction..."

Aside from buying, (new or old), I would ad building option.

At some point in my life I would like to sail extensively on my personal boat. I'm most interested in the remote corners of our world. I have quite clear picture in my mind of the boat which I want. She will be very economical, basic, simple boat. Everything on the boat has to be simple enough to be repaired on the spot by myself. ...

Rig will be a gaff schooner, very lean hull, (length 15 m beam 3 m). Load caring capacity about 1.5 - 2 tons max. Although built from heavy material she will heave water line length / displacement ratio of the light displacement boat. (That's because of the light load and light interior). She will also carry plenty of sail area so she will be a fast boat in all circumstances.

.....Any way, I think that we can conclude that there isn't economical production powerboat at the market which can compete with a production sailing boats on the terms which you defined. But I think that it is possible to custom built one.

Built in steel, origami way, I bet she will be very economical

Milan

Let’s then ad the building option.

I was avoiding that because most people have misconceptions about the price of a boat and think that if they do it, it will be less expensive.

Of course it depends on your skills, but if you are really good at it, you should be a boat builder. For most middle aged people, that have a normal success in their lives, their time is a lot more valuable than the time of a young but competent welder or carpenter.
So, if you build your boat, it will turn out to be more expensive than if you have it built by competent craftsmen, while you earn money doing what you are really good at.

So, for having a reasonable idea of the costs, please go to one or several metal shipyards of your country (they are good and not expensive), show them the plans and ask them a quote for the building of that boat. It will cost you nothing and certainly it will also be a valuable piece of information for you.

Calculatig the cost of a boat is a really difficult and tricky business and if you are not an expert in that area, you probably will not have a clue. You will not be able to calculate the number of hours needed for the various different stages of the building of a boat. That’s why there are so many rusty hulls lying around everywhere.

So, Milan, yes to the building option, but get us a professional quote of the boat costs.

(I have done that already, for other boats, and I think you are going to find that there are no inexpensive boats, and that the less expensive are, by far, the ones that are mass produced.):(

Wellydeckhand

06-01-2006, 03:28 AM

here an article of old marine married couple with years of experience in sailing but think motor-cruiser save alot of money in the long run?:)

What if we use Junk Sail will the cost of sail maintance will be lower?

WDH

FAST FRED

06-01-2006, 05:21 AM

Milan

06-01-2006, 08:37 AM

"Solid wooden masts with a gaff sails attached with a pieces of rope."

Today most would opt for an aluminum light pole , heavy wall, but far lighter than solid wood, cheap to purchadse , cheap to maintain.A cruisers dream.

FAST FRED

What ever is cheapest locally. Where I live, with loads of boats everywhere, it's not difficult to find some broken aluminum mast for next to nothing, but there are many areas in the world where solid wood is still the cheapest option. Weight isn't very important in this particular case, as masts would be very short.

Milan

Vega

06-01-2006, 05:53 PM

What I am proposing is to take a look at each personal criteria and cruising intentions and try to find in the market, new or used boats that best fit their needs, all things considered, initial price, operating costs and personal satisfaction.

After Milan, I will try to be as clear as he was.

As I have said, I hope to be cruising three months in a year, in about 5 years and after that, sometime in the future, more.

About cruising grounds, I have no intention to circumnavigate, but I would like to cruise where I find it agreeable. Probably Med, Black Sea, North Europe, Caribbean, South America, Azores and who knows.

For doing this I want a boat, different from the one I have know.

The one I have can sail between 6 and 7 knots and can motor at 6.5 knots. Regarding speed I want a boat that can motor at 8.5 knots and sail between 7 and 8knots.

As I am going to sail not only in the summer, I want a boat that can be steered from the interior.

I also want an easy sailing boat, a boat with a bigger security margin, and a bigger RM ( at least 50% more) than the one I have now, a boat with a weight of at least 7 T.

I want a comfortable boat, a boat in which I can enjoy the panorama, even when it is cold outside, and a boat big enough to have a couple living, but also to occasionally have the company of sons and grandsons. This means a big cabin, and at least another small one and the capacity of occasionally sleeping six.

But, like Vikendios, I can find, when the time comes, that after all I would prefer a motorboat.

If I chose a motorboat, I will want a boat capable of cruising at 15 knots ( I find quite boring to motor slowly), without a big consumption.

That option will restrict my cruising grounds to coastal cruising, with occasional small passages in settled weather, so it will mean only the Med, Black Sea and North of Europe.

Regarding living space, the criteria will be the same as for the sailing boat.

About money, I would like to spend as little as possible, but I would point to a global cost of about 350 000 euros. And I want a new boat, or a used boat with one or two years. I want to enjoy life and not to be worried with maintenance problems or disagreeable surprises, besides that’s nothing like the pleasure of having a brand new boat.

About surprises, for understanding what I mean, take a look at this thread:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=90932#post90932

Dreaming about boats is half the pleasure, so I will try to share with you all, what I have found in the market regarding boats that meet the criteria I want, at that price (motorboats and sailing boats).

I would be very interested about other cruising options, other criteria and other boats and budgets.:)

After all, cruising is cruising (sailingboat or motorboat) and I think we can find a lot of common ground because cruisers use their boats and travel a lot more extensively, so regarding total costs, operating costs are a lot more important than for the vast majority of other boaters.

Vega

06-02-2006, 07:03 PM

Regarding the motorboat option, there are not many choices to fit that criteria.
One is the Shannon 38. The interior is rather small, but it seems to be a very interesting boat, regarding speed and consumption.
I have asked for the price.
The boat has a version with flybridge.

"SRD is an acronym for Schulz Reverse Deadrise. The aft hull sections of the 38 are radically different from all other powerboats which have convex or positive deadrise hull shapes. By inverting these aft sections on the SRD 38, tremendous lift is produced, while the forward sections provide laminar flow that prevents suction. This revolutionary hull design (U.S. patent pending) enables the SRD 38 to reach speeds in excess of 25 mph with one half the engine horsepower of comparable powerboats.

The SRD hull shape gives an exceptional flat ride plus excellent all-around performance in waters just 2 feet deep. The speed-to-horsepower ratios and fuel economy of the SRD 38 are extraordinary when compared to semi-displacement and deep V hulls, making the SRD 38 truly unique. With only twin 150HP diesels, the prototype reached a top speed of 25 mph and cruised at 20 mph burning only 11 gallons an hour total, for a fuel burn of about two miles to the gallon.

Deep V and trawler hulls at their best use one gallon per mile, and water jet boats obviously burn even more fuel than that. The range of the Shannon SRD 38 with standard tankage is almost 500 miles.

For those interested in even more economy and range, the SRD 38 was also designed to accommodate surface piercing propeller drivers, a truly 21st century solution."

http://www.shannonyachts.com/default.aspx?id=41

Vega

06-03-2006, 06:49 PM

While I am waiting for the Shannon´s price I have found this one, the Liberty 40.

It is a nice boat and it comes with 2 x 240 HP Yanmar Diesel or 2 x 315 HP Yanmar Diesel.
It has a somewhat long and narrow hull and that will probably allow not to waste too much fuel.
It is a 9T boat, a class B boat and it looks seaworthy for its kind.

I have asked about prices of the 2X 240 HP and consumption and I have got this answer:

“Our standard boat with bowthruster and twin 370 (for up to 32 Knots) quote 372.000 ex Vat delivered in Italy (maybe just few thousands more for Portugal delivery).
I assume the same with twin 240 will be cruising around 16/18 and to have top speed around 22/24
The cost will be more or less 30.000 Euro less, but this is a planing boat, I don't suggest so small engines. Probably cruising at 20 with the 370 might be more economic than go 18 with the 240's due to the weight of the boat, and stronger torque of the bigger ones.”

And I guess he is right. I have recently seen the data for a somewhat similar boat with several engine configurations and the smaller engines were the more wasteful.

It is an open cockpit boat, but one of the photos, the one with the television shows a closed cockpit….but of course, even if possible, it will be an extra and that will be considerably more expensive.

It is a very nice boat, but for 444 000 euros (with taxes) and without extras it is out of budget...it is a pity, because it seems really a nice boat, with very good interiors, even if that second cabin looks really small. A lot better than the Shannon, regarding interior space and comfort.

http://www.seafortune.it/ita/visita40.html

Ari

06-04-2006, 09:22 PM

FAST FRED

06-05-2006, 05:20 AM

"Love to have a power boat for circumnavigation..too bad cant afford the fuel cost.."

The fuel cost is determined by size and speed.

Go small and slow and fuel is cheap.
Eg a 36lwl sailboat will burn about 3/4 of a gallon per hour at 6K.
Thats almost 10 nmpg , not bad.
Going fast is where you can burn fuel at 1 nmpg .

Its the "Need for Speed" that gets expensive.
Most long range small boat sailors barely do 100nm a day , setting a boat up for a 5K cruise is over 100nm per day , and should be affordable.

FAST FRED

OneIjim

06-05-2006, 06:19 AM

A local paper here in WA. state ran a front page article recently about the Boeing company’s latest think tank proposal------passenger jets that fly slower----to save on fuel!!! Have we reached the economic and social pinnacle of energy consumption? Sailing vessels may in reality use as much fuel as a power boat at times.
I have tacked up the pearl river in Mississippi a short distance from the Gulf to get out of the way of a storm. To get to the river we had to reef the main because our 3 hp out board could not push us through. The sail saved our tail.
Anything recreational that uses nonrenewable energy, like wind or solar, will become increasingly ‘Not politically correct’. I can see power boaters boasting that they use Bio-fuel to escape that wraith of the huddled masses.
At the very least all pleasure craft should be limited to hull speed. (Boy I know I’m in trouble now!) This of course will create a demand for longer and still longer craft. Wow, We all want bigger boats anyway, don’t we?

I can just see it, huge tall masted sailing ships carrying crude to the fuel starved marinas around the world. Snohomish county, Wa .state is studying its capacity to grow corn for bio-fuel,”have we reached the economic and social pinnacle of energy consumption”?

fcfc

06-05-2006, 06:43 AM

As for me, retirement will be at least in 25-30 years, if nothing change since then.

So for cruising time, I am limited to 2 weeks + some week ends.

Real budget would be 1/7 to 1/6 of vega. And I would greatly prefer a "liquid" boat: easy to sell fast without too big loss if anything happens in life. Or at least to be stored at no costs. Future is so unforseeable I do not want to be stuck with something that should be only a leisure, not a pain.

To cruise with wife and daugther, minimum is separate sleeping area + separate head/shower with hot water and standing headroom. Of course, more comfort welcome.

And then the location. I would like to cruire NOT where I live (near Channel). I would NOT like to spend all my holidays to go to the vacation place. But I would like to have the boat very near where I live in winter for maintenance, repair, and even some weekend use.

So, with my constraints, I rent boats, not own one.

The only boats I could own are trailerable powerboats. I think things are changing in this domain due to car fashion changes. SUV may not be politically correct, but that kind of cars may now go in town, go on higway , bring your wife to restaurant AND tow up to 3 tons. All for the price (or even lower) of a sedan car I have, but limited to tow 1500 kg.

So boats similar to logan 33, whio, andreyale 10, commuter 36 may now be considered as trailerable boats. That need to be under 2300 - 2500 kg (need to deduct trailer weight and allow some gear inside) and beam under 2.5 m (8'2") (8'6" is US trailerable, not Europe).

www.parker-marine.com has interesting designs for me BUT:
the commuter 36 , beam 8'8" (2.64 m) and weigth 6000 lbs (2700 kg) is NOT trailerable for a very little.
The commuter 27, beam 7'10' (2.38) and weigth 4000 lbs (1800 kg), is trailerable, but on the small side.

At this level, 10 cm (4" ) more beam and 500 more kg (1000 lbs) DO count for more comfort.
I do not imagine my family speeding a week long in the commuter 27, even in fine weather.

And then building process. They are homebuilt boats. I have little time to cruise, even less to build a boat. And the resale value. First there is a de facto prohibit to sell homebuilt before 5 years after registration. (Law is you can sell them before, but you will have to pay a full CE certification by an official body). And then most homebuilt sell for barely above the costs of materials : you have worked for nearly free. I have better paid job.

One off will be above my budget, and then does not either garantee some resale value.

So the only remaining possibility is second hand from mass produced series. My father has owned, (and still own one) , 4 boats this kind of buy. Should buy 3 - 5 years old, and sell 8 - 10 years old. You do not exactly choose what you want (only mainstream boats). You do not choose options and it is not new, but this is a very cost effective way provided you have some time, tooling and knowledge for doing yourself most maintenance. But that's very far from rebuilding a boat.

So, I just wait for something looking to a commuter 30 - 31 being mass produced in Europe and available in used market. (I understand Vega very well when he speaks of mass production, market size and resale value). Meanwhile, I rent. Sailboats. For which I must forecast weather and holidays 6 month before, And I need to share with my brother family to be at least two crew fully able to handle the boat. Also allow more time in a bigger boat since costs are also shared. (we rent 34-35 ft odissey or oceanis for 4 adults + two kids).

Wellydeckhand

06-05-2006, 09:13 AM

To think a bigger boat will cost more but anything below 100 ft is still sane..... you should see all those Mega yacht burn fuel.......

To have a slightly bigger motorsailer would be advantage for storm in deep sea, carrying capacity, comfort and extra passanger allowance, repair equipment.

To sail the bugger for day ends on sail in big sea guided by GPS and use the engine when you need the juice and pinpoint drive to a specific location with less hassel of controling the cloth.....

I may be wrong........ but I think that is a compromised way to go......

WDH

Vega

06-05-2006, 09:42 AM

The only boats I could own are trailerable powerboats.

So, I just wait for something looking to a commuter 30 - 31 being mass produced in Europe and available in used market. Should buy 3 - 5 years old, and sell 8 - 10 years old. You do not exactly choose what you want (only mainstream boats). You do not choose options and it is not new, but this is a very cost effective way provided you have some time, tooling and knowledge for doing yourself most maintenance. But that's very far from rebuilding a boat.

Meanwhile, I rent. Sailboats.

fcfc, very interesting post. I think that this should be the direction of this thread, I mean diversity. There are a lot of cruising possibilities and therefore, cruising boats and they are dependent on many factors: one, probably the most important, is available time;
Another important is "available" money.

Cruisers are concerned with money, cruising costs, initial price of boat and consumption but the ideal type of boat will be very different, depending on a number of personal factors.

Only to give an example fcfc says: “One off will be above my budget, and then does not either guarantee some resale value. So the only remaining possibility is second hand from mass produced series. …Should buy 3 - 5 years old, and sell 8 - 10 years old. “ and I agree that this should be the most economical way, regarding initial price, if you don’t have a lot of time to do maintenance or even rebuilding.

But I think that this way of thinking has to do with the fact that fcfc has only 15 days to enjoy the boat, his retirement days are still far away and this boat will not be his dream boat, nor his final one.

For me, it is my dream boat, my final boat and the one where I want to enjoy live, therefore it is a completely different situation.

I think that the richness of this thread will depend on the diversity of different situations and requirements that we will explore here, regarding costs.

Fcfc, it would be interesting to compare the cost of charter option (not only the one with a sailboat, but also the ones with a chartered motorboat) with the costs of the options of owning a trailerable motorboat.

If I were in your situation I would probably look at other possibility: Having the boat out of water in Mallorca and having it in the water only when I want to sail.

That seems a strange solution regarding costs, but having the boat out of water doesn’t cost much. The travel lift costs for a small boat 3 or 4 times a year are not relevant, you could have a far bigger choice in the type of boat, you would save a lot of money not buying a SUV, not to mention the trailer and you would be in one of the most beautiful Med cruising grounds, I mean, the Balearic Islands.

The money you will save in the SUV (initial price and worst fuel consumption), and in the voyage with the trailer, to the cruising grounds will permit you many air flights to Mallorca, for you and your family. Air flights to Mallorca are very inexpensive (40 euros at low season). The reason has to do with the Air Berlin, take a look at their site.

Another issue, Fcfc, you have said that a Range 40 costs about 240 000 euros. That is a very good price and I have tried (several times) to contact them to have some more details about the boat and price options, but I got no answer. Have they gone bankrupt:?:

Vega

06-05-2006, 09:48 AM

Vega

06-05-2006, 10:06 AM

Love to have a power boat for circumnavigation..too bad cant afford the fuel cost..Chinese junk sail are real cheap to built and maintain..so.. motor sailor will be the choice..Since the size are considered big for marina..so do the cost..looks like we have to plan our journey to places that allowed us to anchor out of a marina..

I think Fred is right regarding the size of the boat.

Ari, make some calculations for us. Initial cost and size of a Junk, crew, maintenance costs, engine size and consumption in a circumnavigation, etc.

Only that way, and comparing costs with a more traditional alternative you can see if it is less expensive or not.

Certainly you don't want to travel in a rag tag Junk, and if you want a nice one, then you get a lot of maintenance.

Traditional Junks have little maintenance because they are used to work and their owners don't care to their appearance. Their condition is not always the best and it doesn't have to be, because they are used as coastal boats, but if you want to cross oceans in one, it will have to be in fine condition, and that means new, or doing a rebuild in an old one, and that will be expensive.

And if you can build a junk for not so much money, certainly you can build another smaller wooden vessel for a lot less.

fcfc

06-05-2006, 12:16 PM

Fcfc, it would be interesting to compare the cost of charter option (not only the one with a sailboat, but also the ones with a chartered motorboat) with the costs of the options of owning a trailerable motorboat.

Powerboats costs are way above sailboats in renting. Not even including fuel. An Antares 980 is a little more than twice an Oceanis 351. According to rent companies, insurances and lack of marine knowledge of powerboat customers being the biggest problem.

For owning vs renting, there are also much other issues than direct cost. Not being able to postpone holidays for a few days for bussiness reasons has an indirect cost difficult to evaluate. The opposite way is postponning holidays a few to get rid of that cloudy weather.

And I do not mind that ugly red line on the hull, when a blue one would be much prettier, or mattress quality.

If I were in your situation I would probably look at other possibility: Having the boat out of water in Mallorca and having it in the water only when I want to sail.

That seems a strange solution regarding costs, but having the boat out of water doesn’t cost much. The travel lift costs for a small boat 3 or 4 times a year are not relevant, you could have a far bigger choice in the type of boat, you would save a lot of money not buying a SUV, not to mention the trailer and you would be in one of the most beautiful Med cruising grounds, I mean, the Balearic Islands.

The money you will save in the SUV (initial price and worst fuel consumption), and in the voyage with the trailer, to the cruising grounds will permit you many air flights to Mallorca, for you and your family. Air flights to Mallorca are very inexpensive (40 euros at low season). The reason has to do with the Air Berlin, take a look at their site.

There are also there psychological issues.
If a SUV is needed to trail a boat, the SUV will replace a car (my wife or mine), and will be counted for car budget, not boating budget. And I think today SUV will only be marginally more expensive than a sedan car.
The trailer is part of boating budget.

Now, for remote owning a boat, I think it is very expensive. First, experience in professional travel show me that low fare are always when you cannot use them. And airplane fare are only part of the travel.

Also remote owning means that you do nothing by yourself. Even cleaning the cabin inside and fixing that locker handle. Unless you bring your sponge and toolbox by plane to Mallorca (or buy locally) and use holiday time to do it, all must be subcontracted and trusted correctly done. A trailerable boat would be in your garden for winter, next to the garage / workshop door. Or in the nearby marina in not too bad months (may june, sept), easily accessible for week end boating afternoons beyond holiday season.

Remote owning also means always going to Mallorca, because it is where the boat is ,and finally not sail much more than a rented boat.

Another issue, Fcfc, you have said that a Range 40 costs about 240 000 euros. That is a very good price and I have tried (several times) to contact them to have some more details about the boat and price options, but I got no answer. Have they gone bankrupt:?:

The quote was 275 000 euros, from a ten line boat test in a french boating magazine about one year ago. Their web site is still active, but their last event is december 2004. I do not know more about this builder.

Ari

06-06-2006, 03:58 AM

I think Fred is right regarding the size of the boat.

Ari, make some calculations for us. Initial cost and size of a Junk, crew, maintenance costs, engine size and consumption in a circumnavigation, etc.

Only that way, and comparing costs with a more traditional alternative you can see if it is less expensive or not.

Certainly you don't want to travel in a rag tag Junk, and if you want a nice one, then you get a lot of maintenance.

Traditional Junks have little maintenance because they are used to work and their owners don't care to their appearance. Their condition is not always the best and it doesn't have to be, because they are used as coastal boats, but if you want to cross oceans in one, it will have to be in fine condition, and that means new, or doing a rebuild in an old one, and that will be expensive.

And if you can build a junk for not so much money, certainly you can build another smaller wooden vessel for a lot less.
70 -100 Footer wooden boat made in Indonesia+Indonesian crew
Boat hull(complete and ready for sailing)- $Malaysia(RM) 250K = USD70K

Estimated operating cost per annum.

Sail maintenances - RM2K = USD 0.5K (RM10K divide by 5 yrs )
Riggings maint - RM2K = USD 0.5K (RM10K divide by 5 yrs)
Fuel for generators/engine - RM36K = USD10K (3kw genset+200hp main)
Crew salaries(5) - RM60K = USD 17K (RM1K X 5 X 12 month)
Food supply - RM20K = USD5.5K (RM5.0 x 10PAX x 365days)
Careening + antifouling - RM10K = USD 2.8K (perform by crew)
Engine maintenances - RM2K = USD 0.6K (luboil/filters)
Electrical maint - RM2K = USD 0.6K (lighting/climate control)
Painting/varnishing - RM2K = USD 0.6K (by crew)
Total RM 136K= USD38K

sail/rigging/ maint/ careen RM16K=USD 4.4K are all in cost of material and labour perform by the crews.
Top of the line electronics, audio visual, galley equiment,sea sport toys, sauna,dive shop are not included, every equipment are basic and medium class.Eletrical and Hydraulic system onboard.
This is what expected from me by my boat captain.

For circumnavigation project the crew and master part will be handle by my own family of 5 + 3 crew. We expect to consumed 10-15 metric ton of diesel for that purpose.Can only be confirm when the boat are completed and tested.Since my income is in Ringgit Malaysia..it will be very tough when paying for marina in Euro or USD.This boat will ply Asian waters until the time comes for circumnavigation on the first quater of the third year of sailing.Have a look at my photo gallery to know the kind of junk I'am talking about.Wood is cheap at our place..anything that involve wood, sweat/grease elbow and local expertise is cheap.Good and special metal/alloy is expensive.

Vega

06-07-2006, 06:20 PM

70 -100 Footer wooden boat made in Indonesia+Indonesian crew
Boat hull(complete and ready for sailing)- $Malaysia(RM) 250K = USD70K

Estimated operating cost per annum.

Sail maintenances - RM2K = USD 0.5K (RM10K divide by 5 yrs )
Riggings maint - RM2K = USD 0.5K (RM10K divide by 5 yrs)
Fuel for generators/engine - RM36K = USD10K (3kw genset+200hp main)
Crew salaries(5) - RM60K = USD 17K (RM1K X 5 X 12 month)
Food supply - RM20K = USD5.5K (RM5.0 x 10PAX x 365days)
Careening + antifouling - RM10K = USD 2.8K (perform by crew)
Engine maintenances - RM2K = USD 0.6K (luboil/filters)
Electrical maint - RM2K = USD 0.6K (lighting/climate control)
Painting/varnishing - RM2K = USD 0.6K (by crew)
Total RM 136K= USD38K

sail/rigging/ maint/ careen RM16K=USD 4.4K are all in cost of material and labour perform by the crews.

For circumnavigation project the crew and master part will be handle by my own family of 5 + 3 crew. We expect to consumed 10-15 metric ton of diesel for that purpose.

That is an interesting project.

Utilizing your data, we can see that operating costs for circumnavigating (assuming three years) are of USD 114 000. Almost the double of the boat cost.

Assuming that you are going to make 40 000 miles on that circumnavigation and that your boat is capable of doing 1mile/gallon, considering the calculations I have made for the motorsailor, regarding sailing and motoring, you should waste about 27 metric tons of diesel. What is the real consumption of your engine?

You are going to put some 30 000 hours on that engine. Unless the engine is very good and a new one, you are going to spend a lot more in maintenance than only oil and filters.

Unless you really want to travel with a crew, I still think, that given the low cost of building wooden boats in your country, you could build a smaller and nicer, faster sailboat, sail a lot more, do the circumnavigation with less money and end up with a boat that would be more valuable than the junk, not to mention all the marinas and towns you would not visit, giving the price for port and marina taxes that a big boat demands.

I was thinking in a boat like this, god for 5, 6 people, but that can be handled by one.

But of course, it is your dream, and I wish you good luck.;)

http://www.burnettyachtdesign.co.uk/115cutter.html

Vega

06-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Now, for remote owning a boat, I think it is very expensive. First, experience in professional travel show me that low fare are always when you cannot use them. And airplane fare are only part of the travel.

Also remote owning means that you do nothing by yourself. Even cleaning the cabin inside and fixing that locker handle. Unless you bring your sponge and toolbox by plane to Mallorca (or buy locally) and use holiday time to do it, all must be subcontracted and trusted correctly done. A trailerable boat would be in your garden for winter, next to the garage / workshop door. Or in the nearby marina in not too bad months (may june, sept), easily accessible for week end boating afternoons beyond holiday season.

Remote owning also means always going to Mallorca, because it is where the boat is ,and finally not sail much more than a rented boat.

All true, or almost, but not the airplane tickets to Mallorca. Airberlin has made their exchanging point in Mallorca, I mean all international AirBerlin flights go to Mallorca and then people change plane to go to the German city they want. This makes flights to Mallorca inexpensive. Even in August, providing you do a reservation with plenty of time, or wait till a few days before the flight, the price with all taxes is 132euros or 100euros for a child.

I don't think that it would make such a difference regarding total price or the time you are going to use the boat, since that for using it you have to put the boat in the water and that takes time...not to speak of the price of French Marinas or the long waiting lists to get a place.:rolleyes:

The boat you want, narrow and long, is very rare on the used market, and they are all expensive boats. They are also less seaworthy than beamier boats of the same size. If you could opt for mass production boats you would not only get a lot more choice, but prices that can go with your budget of about 70 000 euros (actually 10 meters, 10 year old mass production motorboats like the Antares, Rodman or Faeton cost more than that, around 90 000 or 100 000 euros)

I am not trying to convince you, but probably next year I am going to leave my boat on the Balearic Islands because I want to sail further, to Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and Italy and I have no time to cruise there and return home. I'll tell you later about the prices:)

About boats suitable to you trailerable project, at that price, I can not find anything…but I wish you good luck (if you can not find anything, you can always buy for that price a new trailerable and seaworthy sailboat:D ).