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

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!

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

From http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_masafety_030920.pdf

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What criticisms? You have said in this thread:

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.

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.)

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".

 

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.

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:

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.

 

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....

 

My mistake, there are a lot of them made of steel.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.