RW Salnick wrote:
DSK inscribed in red ink for all to know:

Budget max to buy is low $100k's. Annual budget would be in the
neighborhood of $25-30k.




Cap'n Ric wrote:

Annual budget of 30K for a power boat isn't much unless you plan on
not going very far.



Or get a boat that is fuel efficient (ie not a speedboat)
From what I have read, and talking to a lot of different cruiser in
both power & sail bost, there isn't a whole lot of difference in the
cost of cruising (unless you are burning fuel to make ten tons of boat
& furniture plane).

DSK


I can only offer this direct, real-world comparison. Two years ago, we
(and our 50' ketch, Perkins 4-236 4 cyl diesel) made a month-long trip
from Seattle to Desolation Sound and back. During the same time frame,
friends of ours down the dock made essentially the same trip in their
55' (?) trawler-style power boat. Not sure of the power plants, but
they are also diesel. We burned 95 gallons of diesel over the course of
the month. The power boat burned 895 gallons of diesel.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle


How much time was spent under sail?

RW Salnick wrote:
I can only offer this direct, real-world comparison. Two years ago,
we (and our 50' ketch, Perkins 4-236 4 cyl diesel) made a month-long
trip from Seattle to Desolation Sound and back. During the same time
frame, friends of ours down the dock made essentially the same trip in
their 55' (?) trawler-style power boat. Not sure of the power plants,
but they are also diesel. We burned 95 gallons of diesel over the
course of the month. The power boat burned 895 gallons of diesel.


Cal Vanize wrote:
How much time was spent under sail?


Going at what speed?

Not meaning to be suspicious but a lot of "trawler style"
power boats these days are semi-planing hulls disguised to
look like tugboats.

If two boats of relatively similar LWL & displacement motor
at the same speed, their fuel consumption will generally be
pretty close to the same.

Now, how much did you spend on sails & running rigging, and
how much fuel would that amount buy?

DSK

Cal Vanize inscribed in red ink for all to know:


RW Salnick wrote:

DSK inscribed in red ink for all to know:

Budget max to buy is low $100k's. Annual budget would be in the
neighborhood of $25-30k.





Cap'n Ric wrote:

Annual budget of 30K for a power boat isn't much unless you plan on
not going very far.




Or get a boat that is fuel efficient (ie not a speedboat)
From what I have read, and talking to a lot of different cruiser in
both power & sail bost, there isn't a whole lot of difference in the
cost of cruising (unless you are burning fuel to make ten tons of
boat & furniture plane).

DSK


I can only offer this direct, real-world comparison. Two years ago,
we (and our 50' ketch, Perkins 4-236 4 cyl diesel) made a month-long
trip from Seattle to Desolation Sound and back. During the same time
frame, friends of ours down the dock made essentially the same trip in
their 55' (?) trawler-style power boat. Not sure of the power plants,
but they are also diesel. We burned 95 gallons of diesel over the
course of the month. The power boat burned 895 gallons of diesel.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle



How much time was spent under sail?



I don't recall, but "as much as possible", given that frequently a
destination was targeted... I think that well more than half the miles
were made under sail. Under power, we average 5.5 kt, and tho under
sail, the speed variation was much greater, we probably averaged pretty
much the same speed overall. One of our criteria was that if our speed
(in the water) dropped to less than about 3.5 kt, we fired up the
Perkins. Also, the PNW is an area of tremendous currents - if our SOG
dropped to less than 2 kt, we fired up the Perkins as well.

Frequently, the comparisons between power and sail are made with both
boats under power. The thing that seems to be often left out in these
comparisons is that with a sail boat, there is a lot of time when you
are making miles with the engine switched off completely.

This trip was in what is considered to be "inland waters" where the wind
is less reliable than what you would find in coastal cruising. I have
no experience there, but others might well say that our ratio of sail to
power was lower than their experience. For example, friends of ours
recently completed the trip from Seattle to San Francisco. Better than
95% of their miles were made under sail.

What you will find is highly dependant on the area you intend to cruise,
the time of year during which you intend to cruise, and a really
indefinable quantity that is some combination of your enjoyment of the
experience of being under sail, your patience, and your focus on the
journey (as well as the destination). This is a very personal thing,
and the great variety of boat types on the water reflects this
diversity. Pick a boat that matches your personality type, or you will
be forever frustrated, disappointed, and ultimately, disinterested in
boating. Judging by the number of boats (of *all* types) that sit tied
to the dock 40 or 50 weeks out of the year, not many people get this
right...

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle

DSK inscribed in red ink for all to know:
RW Salnick wrote:

I can only offer this direct, real-world comparison. Two years ago,
we (and our 50' ketch, Perkins 4-236 4 cyl diesel) made a month-long
trip from Seattle to Desolation Sound and back. During the same time
frame, friends of ours down the dock made essentially the same trip
in their 55' (?) trawler-style power boat. Not sure of the power
plants, but they are also diesel. We burned 95 gallons of diesel
over the course of the month. The power boat burned 895 gallons of
diesel.


Cal Vanize wrote:

How much time was spent under sail?


Going at what speed?

Not meaning to be suspicious but a lot of "trawler style" power boats
these days are semi-planing hulls disguised to look like tugboats.

If two boats of relatively similar LWL & displacement motor at the same
speed, their fuel consumption will generally be pretty close to the same.

Now, how much did you spend on sails & running rigging, and how much
fuel would that amount buy?

DSK


Oh, this is definitely a displacement hull... no doubt about that.

The sails, rigging, etc came with the boat...as well as the diesel.
Didn't spend anything extra on them. I have replaced some of the
running rigging in the 10 years we have owned Eolian - probably
$100-200/year. And my oil changes in the diesel involve 2 gallons of
oil altogether.

But as I said to Cal, this is less about cost than about money well
spent. If you buy the least expensive boat type (by whatever criteria
you should choose to use - and the arguments on this subject abound here
on usenet), and end up with a boat that doesn't match your personality
properly, then *all* the money will be poorly employed, supporting a
marine life habitat tied to the dock.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle

RW Salnick wrote:
Oh, this is definitely a displacement hull... no doubt about that.


Sorry, I meant the trawler that burned 895 gallons... For a
55' boat that's probably not even a full load (maybe not
even half), but then there are trawlers I know of in the 45'
~ 50' range that burn approx the same 2 gph that we do. The
ones that burn more all go faster... the ones that go
significantly faster don't want to talk about it


The sails, rigging, etc came with the boat...as well as the diesel.
Didn't spend anything extra on them. I have replaced some of the
running rigging in the 10 years we have owned Eolian - probably
$100-200/year. And my oil changes in the diesel involve 2 gallons of
oil altogether.


'K
But sails do have a finite life span, and ones that are
worth having in the first place are relatively expensive.
Amortizing them over 10 to 12 years makes them a better buy
for the mileage than diesel fuel.... however, if power
boaters were content to cruise at 5 knots, they'd burn FAR
less fuel. Shucks with our boat (which is overpowered IMHO)
if we go 5 knots it seems like the engine is actually making
fuel out of air and pumping it back to the tank!


But as I said to Cal, this is less about cost than about money well
spent.

Very much agreed.

.... If you buy the least expensive boat type (by whatever criteria
you should choose to use - and the arguments on this subject abound here
on usenet), and end up with a boat that doesn't match your personality
properly, then *all* the money will be poorly employed, supporting a
marine life habitat tied to the dock.


Agreed again, and there are mor examples IMHO of people
getting this wrong than getting it right.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:36:48 -0500, DSK wrote:

We burn about 1 3/4 gph cruising about 7 to 7.5 knots. The
boat will (in theory) go 8.5 but fuel consumption starts
getting up into the 5gph range and we make a loke of wake
and foam and noise, for not a lot of speed gained.

Here's another data point:

On our Grand Banks 49 we average about 1 gallon per mile on extended
cruises unless we make a really concious effort to economize which can
save an additional 10 to 20%. That includes about 4 hours per day of
generator time, running on both engines, and using active stabilizers
virtually 100% of the time. Our average speed is about 8.5 kts,
slowing to about 7.9 if we are really trying to stretch the fuel.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:36:48 -0500, DSK wrote:

We burn about 1 3/4 gph cruising about 7 to 7.5 knots. The
boat will (in theory) go 8.5 but fuel consumption starts
getting up into the 5gph range and we make a loke of wake
and foam and noise, for not a lot of speed gained.

Here's another data point:

On our Grand Banks 49 we average about 1 gallon per mile on extended
cruises unless we make a really concious effort to economize which can
save an additional 10 to 20%. That includes about 4 hours per day of
generator time, running on both engines, and using active stabilizers
virtually 100% of the time. Our average speed is about 8.5 kts,
slowing to about 7.9 if we are really trying to stretch the fuel.

This doesn't seem quite right to me - my catamaran, which weighs about
15% of what your trawler weighs, uses almost as much fuel.

If you boat displaces 60000 pounds, then it will need about 60 HP to
get over 7 knots, 90 hp to get to 8.5 knots. Looking at specs for
various Caterpillar engines, the gallons/hour at 60 hp is 3+ gals.
Using two smaller engines doesn't help that much, though at least they
can idle with lower consumption.

Your number only make sense if you spend more time on average using
you engines to run the A/C than propel the boat.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:51:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

This doesn't seem quite right to me - my catamaran, which weighs about
15% of what your trawler weighs, uses almost as much fuel.

If you boat displaces 60000 pounds, then it will need about 60 HP to
get over 7 knots, 90 hp to get to 8.5 knots. Looking at specs for
various Caterpillar engines, the gallons/hour at 60 hp is 3+ gals.
Using two smaller engines doesn't help that much, though at least they
can idle with lower consumption.

Your number only make sense if you spend more time on average using
you engines to run the A/C than propel the boat.

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your point. The numbers are
what they are, and yes, the boat weighs about 60,000 lbs.

The engines are twin Detroit 6-71s which are way bigger than what is
actually needed to run at 8.5 kts. I'm sure that introduces some
inefficiencies. The port side engine also drives a hydraulic pump for
the stabilizer system. It wouldn't surprise me if that took an
additional 10 to 20 hp, or about 1 gph. The primary generator is an
oversized 20 KW unit that uses about 1 gph on average but we do not
run it continuously except in hot weather.

The best we have ever done is about 6 gallons per hour running 7.9 kts
in flat water, and using the smaller backup generator as little as
possible.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:51:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

This doesn't seem quite right to me - my catamaran, which weighs about
15% of what your trawler weighs, uses almost as much fuel.

If you boat displaces 60000 pounds, then it will need about 60 HP to
get over 7 knots, 90 hp to get to 8.5 knots. Looking at specs for
various Caterpillar engines, the gallons/hour at 60 hp is 3+ gals.
Using two smaller engines doesn't help that much, though at least they
can idle with lower consumption.

Your number only make sense if you spend more time on average using
you engines to run the A/C than propel the boat.

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your point. The numbers are
what they are, and yes, the boat weighs about 60,000 lbs.

The engines are twin Detroit 6-71s which are way bigger than what is
actually needed to run at 8.5 kts. I'm sure that introduces some
inefficiencies. The port side engine also drives a hydraulic pump for
the stabilizer system. It wouldn't surprise me if that took an
additional 10 to 20 hp, or about 1 gph. The primary generator is an
oversized 20 KW unit that uses about 1 gph on average but we do not
run it continuously except in hot weather.

The best we have ever done is about 6 gallons per hour running 7.9 kts
in flat water, and using the smaller backup generator as little as
possible.

Sorry - I read 1 GPM as 1 GPH! Doing about 8 GPH when approaching
hull speed is in line with my rules of thumb.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:28:05 -0500, Jeff wrote:

1 GPH

If only it were true. :-)