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

If it is efficient VEGA..... it gonna cost more to buy for sure

 

Thanks for posting it.
It is a very interesting boat. I don’t like the “modern” style, kind of executive looking, but I have to agree that it is a well designed boat and probably a well engineered one too, if it can get the advertised 30k with 2X250hp.
.
I don’t understand how someone can get to the bow in anything but flat water, but you have to compromise if you want to have this kind of interior space in a 39ft.

But the best thing is the price. They claim that the price will be 245 000 euros (without taxes), and that is amazing…..Vikendios, take a look at this one. If it is still out of budget, they will have a 34ft soon.

 

Sleek and minimalist........ feel abit like Wally's............

 

I love the look of it!
I agree - the side decks look a little on the narrow side - I'm sure the real thing will have at least a bow rail....

I have a design for a 40 footer that should do around 25 knots with a single 350hp. I'll post some pics in the gallery as soon as I get a chance, and will provide a link from here.....

 

Please post it here too, or a direct link to your gallery. I guess you are talking about 25K max speed and a cruising speed between 18 and 20K? Even so, it is interesting. What would be the consumption at cruising speed?

 

Willallison, one of the boats of this kind that has a more moderate consumption is the Nimbus 380 coupé. The speed and the engine power are not far away from what you are talking about, even if they propose two engines (2x200 or 2x230), for a top speed of 26 or 28K. This is a good performance, if we consider that we are talking about a seaworthy and relatively heavy boat for a 38 ft ( 7T).

The interesting thing is that they are rather concerned about fuel consumption and have made a lot of testing and that is not usual in this kind of boat where they are normally very vague about that. I’ll post their numbers, because they are very interesting….and this boat costs about the same as the Fjord 40. Not a bad price (I had the idea that Nimbus were very expensive…doesn’t look that way now, comparing with the competition).

About the consumption, there are some curiosities on those numbers. For me the biggest surprise is that the max economy for mile for the 2x200hp set up is at 3500rpm, wasting 66,4L/H, but only 2,97L/M at a speed of 22,3 K. The catch is that rpm are only 500rpm lower than max rpm and if the boat can sustain that speed for some time, it is not, by any means, a cruising speed. That engine at cruising speed of 3000rpm wastes 49,6L/H, but the boat wastes 3,06L/M and that is about the same (a little bit more) than what the boat wastes for Mile at 22,3K, and at 3000rpm the boat is making only 16.2 knots.

If you want to cruise at 20K, then the 2x230 engines will be a lot better option, not because you can’t reach 20k with the 2x200, but because you can not maintain that speed for hours without shortening dramatically the life of the engine.

If you just utilize the boat for short trips, then the 2x200 would be perfectly suitable to go at 20K. The engine will not last for many hours, but if you just do short trips, it will probably outlast the boat. Anyway it is not a matter of economy in the consumption, because the 2x230hp engines will waste about the same for mile at 20K, but a question of the initial price of the boat, being the bigger engines obviously more expensive.

There are sometimes two misconceptions about motorboats and motorizations:

One is that the shipyards propose ridiculous powerful motorizations for their boats, the other is that, from the proposed engines, the biggest one is always more wasteful than a smaller one and always a worst choice for a cruiser, regarding costs and rational use.

I guess that the majority of manufacturers know very well what they are doing and this is a very good example of a rational choice of engines in a good hull with two adequate motorizations, for two different uses of the boat. Both are right. The right one for you will depend on the use you give to the boat.

If you are a cruiser, and make a significant use of the boat (hours of motoring) then, in the Nimbus 38 case, the most powerful is the logical one; if you use the boat for just short trips, in this case, then the less powerful would be the logical choice.

http://www.nimbus.se/modelPageCoupe.aspx?pageid=446

 

Beware that now, the engine listed are replaced by D4 225 and D4 260. Since they are electronically controlled common rail and 4 valves/cylinder, they certainly have a better efficiency than the old engines.

This also lead to the fact that the 260 hp operating under 225 hp will have the same comsumption as the 225 for the same hp due to the electronic control. From volvo curves, for 100Kw prop, the 260 will turn 2700 rpm and burn 26l/h, the 225 will turn 2900, but also burn 26l/h. Interesting is D4-180 will need to turn nearly 2600 but still burn 26l/h for the same 100 Kw at the prop.

The price difference in the two engines is also marginal compared to the boat price (3000€ / engine). But other equipements may also differ and lead to a greater price difference for the full boat.

Also for a planning hull, the best efficiency at speed beyond hull speed is when it is planning, and efficiency increase as speed increase. You see it on N Irens papers, when in the higher speeds, the bavaria has a better efficiency than the Ilan Voyager. The higher speed increases the hydrodynamic lift, so reduces the remaining volume of the hull in water and the wetted surface. So efficiency increases with the speed (While there is some hull in the water, and the propeller does not loose to much effciency).

 

I can not find the power/consumption curves for the older engine, but it is a little bit odd isn’t it? I mean an electronically controlled common rail should waste less fuel at the same power.

I remember that the 2.7 turbo engine that equipped my old Nissan Terrano (100hp) used to waste 15L/100Km at 150km/h and that, at the same speed, a much more heavier Isuzu trooper (Opel Monterey), one of the first four well drive with an electronic controlled common rail, (with around 160 hp) wasted only 13/100. I am sure that it was needed more power to move the Isuzu at that speed than to move the Nissan, because this one was 400kg lighter).

There have been huge improvements in power without increasing consumption (sometimes even decreasing) in the diesel car engines, and it seems that in the marine engines that improvement is not so substantial.

You seem to know a lot about engines (do you work with?) what do you think about this?
Why don’t we see the same level of improvement in Marine diesel engines?

 

Well, it’s time to share the results of that search, because I am about to leave for my cruising month.

Surprisingly I have found that there is a difference between the American and the European market.

In the market of what is called express cruisers, the American boats, between 38 and 40ft are always open boats, regarding the pilot station and upper deck. Most of European boats of the same size and category have a closed pilot house and upper deck.

As the boats are made in function of the market and the climate is not very different, considering globally US and Europe, that leads me to conclude that Americans use their small motorboats less to cruise extensively. Closed upper-deck boats can extend the period where you can use the boat comfortably and effectively extend the living area, not only in sunny days, but anytime.

American boats are also more expensive and probably more luxurious than European ones, less adapted to cruising and definitively out of the 350 000 euros budget. More like very nice boats perfectly adapted for having fun in sunny hot weekends. In a word, weekend cruisers.

Among the ones that I find nicer, I am amused to see that they are primarily sailboat makers, like the Santa Cruz flyer (the more luxurious) or the Island Packet 36 and the Sabre 38. A word also to the Pearson 38 which I found really beautiful.

About prices, the highest priced is the Santa Cruz, more than a US$ 1, 000,000 and the others cost a little bit more than half of that.

http://www.santacruzyachts.com/powerboats.html
http://www.packetcraftyachts.com/
http://www.sabreyachts.com/motor_yachts/sabreline38_express/index.php
http://www.pearsonyachts.com/home.asp

As I have said, I was not able to find an adequately priced fast cruiser boat in the US, but that was not the case considering European motorboats.

I will post about those later.

 

Hi guys, Im a newbie to this site but have had a few sailing boats over the years and done about 30,000 logged miles over the past years. The last boat we had was a 30 ft performance cruising cat which was just great. Fast,shallow draft,did,nt spill your rum and coke while racing and had one queen size bed, an electric toilet,small gas fridge, and not much else. Did not think I,d change to the dark side, but after deciding we wanted to live aboard and having done the numbers over and over, we're going a stink boat... It's a fifty foot cat, but has the same amount of accomadation as most 40 footers, She has 65hp cummins diesels x 2 Naturally aspirated. and will plod along at around 10kn and get around 14kn on the fly [clean bum,glassy seas ] Like a lot of the new breed of power cats light weight was essentual and this one should come in at around 4700 kg dry and has a displacement of 8500kg.
All we wanted on the new boat was a good sized dinghy [12 ft with 15hp] as crocs look big in 8 ft flatties and 350 liters of fridge freezer. of course ther will be lcd tv/ comp screen and usual fish finder ,car stereo and good auto pilot.
The cost of rig and sails on a cat that can comfortably carry the dinghy was about $60,000 and would have had 30hp diesels anyway,so lose the rig, change the hull shape[not much if only doing max of 14 kn] and have $60,000 to pay for diesel. The cost of a new mainsail and heady plus rigging wire etc should cover maitenance on motors,which i would have had anyway.

Anyway as we're builing this beast ourselves, it will cost bout $120,000 and we're well on target with main structure complete an primed and motors shafts and rudders done. As she sits she owes us $60,000, so we're confident we'll have a result.

I'll get some pics happenning when I can figure out how to put them on here.

 

Hah! Another convert! One day I'll have you all converted

oh - and welcome aboard catmando2

 

Hello, welcome to the discussion. You can be new, but 30 000 miles is a lot.

Milan has already said something in the way you are thinking, but referring to a mono-hull.

And that makes sense, but only if the boat is made by you and not to the standards of 50ft production Cat's interior quality (nothing wrong with that, if the important is sailing away in a safe and good boat) but it only makes sense to compare what is comparable.

Production 50ft cats costs roughly between USD $ 580,000 and USD $ 1,000, 000 .

http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/...=&toPrice=&currencyid=100&city=&pbsint=&ps=30

The USD$ 60,000 for the rig and sails, that in your case represent 50% of the boat costs, normally would only represent between 10% and 6%.

The initial costs of the boat will be so overwhelming, comparing with costs of fuel, sails or the rig, that it just doesn’t matter if it is a sailboat or a motorboat, unless you want to travel a lot, I mean really a lot.

Regarding initial cost it looks that what happens with monohulls happens also with multihulls, I mean, motorboats are generally more expensive that sailboats.

You can find 50ft Motor Multihulls from USD $ 630,000 to USD $ 2,000,000.

http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/...=&toPrice=&currencyid=100&city=&pbsint=&ps=30

Not that matters. As I have said, to this size of boats, initial price counts so much that it is a matter of personal choice, but anyway, Motormultihulls don’t come cheaper than Sailing Multihulls.

About the costs of the different phases in the building of a boat, take a look here:

http://boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9050&d=1158025021

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13657&page=2

You can see that, normally, rig and sails are a small part in the total cost of a sailboat, very far away from the 50% that you estimate in your case.

I wish you the best of luck and you are going to need it because making a 50ft motorcat with USD$ 120,000 is quite an achievement.

 

Thanks for the reply vega, pribably should clear up a few points, firstly I'm in Australia so aus not us dollars. none of the production cat's I,ve seen really fit into the serious liveaboard catagory for me. They look great on paper and tied up to a berth but in real life don't do it for me. [my opinion]. The rig and sails costs were for a go fast set up, the only thing that makes a boat go is rig and sails. [again my opinion] These would have been at mates rates as well. I like boats pretty simple so you dont spend all your time doing maintenance.White hose out interior, minimal timber trim,no a/c minimul electronics etc.
Being a boatbuilder by trade helps, and doing it in backyard saves about $1500/mth in shed space, and of course the costs i've stated are material and consumable costs only. After having seen how a lot of production boats are put together, I could never spend $500,000 plus on one,afterall how much does a thousand litres of polyester resin and chopper gun rovings cost. Not much let me tell you. I'd rather have lightweight epoxy composite anyday.
I realize for the majority of people the path I'm going down is just too bloody hard, and believe me it is tough,but the desire to get the boat we want, without spending half a mill plus makes us do what we have to do.
Also a lot of the areas we cruise in it is usually 0 to 10knots and most sailing vessels are motoring anyway,unless of course there light and go fast, or it blowing 25 knots plus. When I'm out at the Swains reefs off of Queenslands coast you dont want to be there when its the latter and being a couple of hundred nm ofshore you need to be getting there at more than 6 knots as you'll only get a week of the calm stuff.
Again this boat only has 65 HP/ side so will be fairly economical,we reckon we could motor from Brisbane to Cooktown [about 1000 nm]for about the same amount as the wear and tear on a fast forty ft sailing cat and this has been proven on quite a few low powered light cats cruising Qld coast at moment, and they do there miles in calm conditions not 20knots on the nose.
Long light hulls are cheap, it's the amount of crap you put in 'em that costs the big buck's and of course the hourly rate us boatbuilders charge. I must point out that we're cheaper than the bloody plumber I had out the other day.

Have fun
Dave

P:S to get an idea of the styling have a look at the Schionning website and their 40 ft powercat, we're similiar on 50 ft hulls.more out front and longer steps .

 

Vega - as you suggest, it is important to compare like with like. In so doing I think that powercats would comparable to sailing cats in terms of cost. Sure a 50ft powercat tends to cost more than a 50ft sailing cat. But that's usually because they have more in them. Their engines are usually bigger and they tend to offer a bit more accomodation
I could offer the perfect example of one that would be ideal for like-for-like comparison - the Perry 43 http://www.perrycatamarans.com.au
but unfortunalety the company has gone into liquidation, so I can't give you comparative prices.
However, as Dave is doing, if you take 2 almost identical cats - one power and the othe sail - with the same layout, fitout and engines, the powercat will obviously be less expensive as it doesn't have the cost of the rig.

 

That means that if you were a plumber, it would be better to put a boatbuilder making your boat, otherwise you would be losing a lot of money.

Seriously, about costs, even if being a professional boatbuilder leaves you in a privileged position regarding doing your own boat, it is not reasonable not to add the costs of your own work, because if you were not working on your boat you could be working in another boat and making money.

This has already been discussed here. Of course it all depends on how much a guy earns for a living, but in many cases, it will be economically disadvantageous, to build his own boat by himself, instead of having it built by a professional.

About the amount of crap, being the more expensive thing in a boat, I agree, a simple and almost naked boat is a lot cheaper, but they put “crap” in the boats, because most people want it and if you don’t put what you call crap in a boat, people will not feel comfortable in it and that boat would not sell. That’s why the standard of finish and equipment of a 50ft cat has a lot of “crap”.

Anyway, it is only fair to compare boats without crap, with other boats without crap, and boats with crap, with similar equipped boats…and most people want boats with a lot of “crap”.

Don’t take me wrong, when I was younger I have done extensive coastal cruising with a boat that had no “crap” at all, I mean, it was a naked boat and the most remarkable pieces of equipment where a Compass, a Bucket (you can imagine its main use) and a big Fisherman’s Anchor. The boat was closed, but with a completely naked inside.

But now, to live in a boat, I will want a fair amount of what you call “crap”. For instance, I will skip the two TV sets that Will has in his boat , but I will not pass without a very good hi-fi system .

For posting the photos of your boat (I would like to see them) it is really easy. Click on “Post reply”, scroll down till you find “manage attachments”, click on it and then click on “Browse”, and you can take them directly from your computer.

Regards