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

[FAST FRED]

"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]

Originally Posted by fcfc

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]

Originally Posted by Vega

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]

[quote=fcfc]

Originally Posted by 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]

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.

Originally Posted by fcfc

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]

Originally Posted by Vega

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vikendios

:
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]

Originally Posted by Vikendios

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.

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.

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.

[Vikendios]

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 Beneteau 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. OK, some 44 ft sailboats will squeeze in a third cabin, but it will be more like two berths in a cupboard.

Now that design is 40 years old. The press is reporting that GB is working right now on reissuing 32 and/or 36 models because they know that they have to go into what for them is a starter market. You bet that when S&S works on this it's going to be a hell of a comfortable boat !!!

Geia Sou,

Vikendios

[FAST FRED]

"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]

Originally Posted by Vikendios

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]

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 ).

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

[fcfc]

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/34tra...TrawSpecs.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]

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.

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 ?

Naval architects may disagree, but I wonder if the usual advantages claimed for pure displacement hulls at low (hull) speeds, like wetted surface, lesser drag, more weight-carrying, better ballasting and ultimate righting moment, may not be that formidable compared to a GB-type hull for small trawlers limited to a coastal cruising program.