Obvioulsy the right boat is different for every persons. What surprise me is that people do not put fuel consumption high on their wish list. Would it be because fuel is cheaper in the States? If so how long will that be? Fuel consumption was definitely one of the reason that made us choose for Tad Robert's Passagemakerlite 46plus. No you do not have as much space as a Nordhavn. We have been live aboard for the last ten years always on sailing yachts from a 34 ft to a 42 ft. Our passagemakerlite 46plus will have a big owners cabin forward and a office/guest cabin. Two engines, 3000 liter fuel (sorry US friends you will have to convert it your self). Another major factor for us was the classic look of the design we really love it. Our boat is being build here in South Africa for 350 000US $ no that does not include aircon and washing machines , where ex-sailors remember we do not cruise with caravans. That bring the boatmore to a budget a "normal" guy can afford without having to sell an IT business or be in the oil industry. www.passagemakerlite.blogspot.com www.ataraxia.talkspot.com www.passagemakerlite.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:09:00 EDT > From: Truelove39@aol.com > Subject: [PUP] The Right Boat > To: keith@anastasia3.com, JohnPH@Comcast.net > Cc: passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com > Message-ID: <bdb.16af7f74.33d9e8dc@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 1. Get home, yes. Powerful. We wish our 27HP Yanmar were about > 60HP. That > seems to be about where newer get-somewhere engines are these days, and > likely > that is what would be needed to just keep position in a real blow, say > nothing of getting anywhere. > > 2. A large bilge pump, electric clutch-driven off the main engine and > piped > to the forepeak as well as the ER and is in addition to large electric > pumps > in each space. > > 2A. A watertight collision bulkhead. > > 3. There's not much talk about fire on these lists, but it's every > professional seaman's worst nightmare. This was drilled into me when I > was working as > an oiler on a Getty tanker. The first place you go upon reporting aboard > is > to your fire station, then your lifeboat station. IMO, the puny fire > extinguishers we all carry would be totally inadequate for a real > conflagration. A > quality 3/4 inch garden hose with a standard nozzle set to the fog > position can > remove a lot of heat from a fire and perhaps save the life of someone who > is > afire, God forbid. This of course requires a good pump and some thought > as > to how to power it. > > 4. Manual backup (paravanes) for fin stabilizers. > > 5. An enclosed aperture with Spurs on the shaft. > > 6. A keel that the boat can stand on. > > 7. Attachments and tackle for the emergency tiller. > > Regards, > > John > "Seahorse" > > > > > > Full displacement hull to get #1, and some sort of reliable get-home > power. > I'd suggest to the originator of that question to get Robert > Bebe's "Voyaging > Under Power". It goes into all that. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John > Harris > > > 1) RANGE > 3,000 miles i.e. adequate to reach any > point on earth with > reasonable routing adjustments. > > 2) Stabilizers of any > kind, passive, active, compensating or whatever, > without them life is to > uncomfortable - sometimes. > > 3) Water supply - a water maker or >200 gallons of > tankage or both. We can > get along easily on 10 gallons a day or with > rationing on 5, so that allows > for 20 to 40 days of water. > > Other thoughts ? > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > From: Keith McGregor > > Alan, > Would you care to expand on some of your reasons for not choosing Buehler? > I am quite enamored with his Diesel Duck line of boats and am interested > to > learn what it was that made you go in a different direction relative to > picking a designer. I've read his books and websites, and I really > appreciate his approach to designing passagemaking capable boats > _______________________ > > > Sure . . . . . > > I got the "design and build your own" bug back in late 2003 when I read > Buehler's book -- The Troller Yacht Book -- and found that there were few > choices for ocean crossing boats under 60 feet with three cabins (a > requirement" of ours because of two kids of different sexes). > > The information from the Diesel Duck site did spark my interest -- > especially the price tag. Interested me enough to order the design study > drawings. When I got them and spread them out to look closely I really > did > not like the design a lot. They were "OK" and would work -- but I was > worried about what I perceived to be lack of visibility from anywhere but > the pilot house. It also seemed like it was pretty close quarters > below. I > don't think that the 55 Duck had been started at that time and the 462 was > the largest available. It didn't seem big enough for what we wanted. > > I remember spending part of a weekend in the backyard with a tape measure > and "creating" the different cabins and spaces with blue construction tape > on my driveway, trying to get a feel for the Duck space. > > I exchanged a couple of e-mails with Buehler (I may have even spoken to > him > once) and with quite a few with Duck owners (at the time there were not as > many as there are now). I couldn't get any real information on whether it > couyld be "stretched" into what we did want. > > All in all -- if I was single (or perhaps young and childless) and wanted > to > tackle the challenge of circumnavigation with austerity the Duck would > merit > a closer look. No question it can do it and it seems that there may be > some > cost advantages. But (and it is a big but for us, it looked to me as if > the > "typical" Duck was very Spartan -- almost like a bachelor's pad, but in a > boat. I wanted something more roomy and something that was "couple > friendly > and "kid friendly." I just never got the "feel" that the Duck would make > me happy year after year after year. That was important because we wanted > to essentially swap the house for a boat and spend the rest of our healthy > lives on it. That demanded more than just an ocean capable boat (which > the > Duck certainly is). It demanded an ocean capable home that was robust, > roomy, three cabins, etcetera. > > Frankly, we wanted something a little more luxurious that the Duck could > offer. Luxurious is not the right word because it conjures up thoughts of > Jacuzzis, 24/7 generators, satellite Internet and the like. We don't > expect > to live like Tiger Woods, but we don't want to feel like we were back in > the > college dorm, either. In the end, the Duck seemed more college dorm that > we > wanted and it did not meet our three cabin requirement that would allow > the > kids to visit or, later, one kid (and husband and grandchild). > > I also read all the Bruce Roberts books and information as well and > finally > ran into Kasten's site and the wealth of information available there. I > sent e-mails and questions to a bunch of designers, including Bueller, > Roberts and others. While they did respond and did not just blow me off, > the responses and detail of information I received from Kasten was > overwhelming and of immense help and value to my "what I want," "what can > I > pay for," "what do I really need" hand wringing. Kasten's generosity in > responding to my "what about this," "how about that," "what will it cost" > etcetera questioning had me gravitating toward him and, when I did finally > make the plunge to start the design/build adventure Kasten was a natural > choice, as I had become very trusting of him and his thoroughness. > > If you are doing the design/build "thing," picking a designer and a boat > (and, later, a builder). Involves a decent measure of that unquantifiable > feel" or "gut" for what you think is right and what you think you will be > happy with. While that is also part of the selection of a production > boat, > I think that it is a little more important, or at least a part of, the > custom boat process. In large part that is because most custom designs > don > t have much if any "track record" -- as would a Nordhavn or Krogen, > etctera > buy experience. > > In the years that have passed since I first made my decision there have > been > a lot more Ducks built and more of a track record with that design -- so > Beuhler may be now somewhere in between the "pure" custom design/build and > pure" production extremes. In that respect my 2003 de-selection of > Buehler > and selection of Kasten, in no small measure based on an as informed as I > could be "gut" feel is now nearly 4 years old and the Ducks and Buehler > now > have four years more history to consider. > > > Alan > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:31:12 -0400 > From: John Ford <johnpford@mac.com> > Subject: [PUP] News Release from Gibralter Spain about Milt Baker and > Company.. > To: Passagemaking Under Power List > <passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <0F7D633F-98E1-490F-94AE-9286298BCEEE@mac.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Just neat to see listee's names in the press. > > http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=12755 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:35:18 -0500 > From: "bob Austin" <thataway4@cox.net> > Subject: [PUP] Suitable boats > To: <passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <008f01c7cfee$64012070$6801a8c0@your0cdc4f5844> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > There are many smaller and less expensive boats very suitable for the > Coastal cruising. I have seen Grand Banks 36 and 32 safely cruise to > Mexico > and further. Another boat I have seen several places along the Coast is > the > single engine Rough Water 41-42, probably the most boat for the $$$. > (Consider the large windows, leaks, and potential deck softness problems) > But the RW is a Monk design and not a bad hull. Certainly the Ocean > Alexanders are right up there, and I have already mentioned the Choey > Lee's. > The Defever Long Range Cruiser 40 is another boat which is often ignored, > and one has gone from Calif. thru the Canal, and eventually around the tip > of S. America, back up to California. Most of the Defevers are capable of > these coastal passages. Of course the Hatteras LRC series qualifies. > > So is passagemaking about crossing oceans, or about coastal cruising--and > where is the line? I would certainly consider a boat which has the range > to > circumnavigate S. America, a coastal passagemaker... > > Bob Austin > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:37:26 -0500 > From: "bob Austin" <thataway4@cox.net> > Subject: [PUP] The right boat. > To: "Passage under power" > <passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <009601c7cfee$afd2c3a0$6801a8c0@your0cdc4f5844> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > The reason I put a water maker high on the list of a passagemaker is not > the > quanity of water, but the quality. 300 gallons will do for most any > passage. > But it is getting pure water which can be an issue. > > Bob Austin > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:12:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) > From: "Alan Wagner" <Wagner.Florida@verizon.net> > Subject: [PUP] Arild and the design build "thing" > To: <passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <46A95487.000011.01012@ALAN> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I was sitting here tonight talking with Debbie about my recent post on > our > design adventure and, in doing so, I realized that I would be horribly > remise not to mention our very own listee, Arild Jensen, who I got > involved > after the Kasten design was nearly finished and right as were selecting a > builder. > > Arild explored some alternative get home, electrical propulsion ideas I > had > (that in the end were not practical), but in doing so I hired him to > design > the electrical details of Passage of Time and he did a marvelous job. It > is > an often overlooked area that is most frequently left by the designer to > the > builder. Arild really focused me on the entire electrical setup, looked > at > what I had put on my specifications list and made some hugely significant > suggestions in changing the refridge and air conditioning system > components > for better energy usage. > > In the end I think I ended up with a very elegant electrical design that I > am thoroughly delighted with and which is in many respects quite unique. > Thanks to Arild, I was able to scrap the third engine (the stand alone > generator). My "get home" engine doubles as the generator, but delivers > DC > power, not AC, to the batteries and the inverters via two huge alternators > (it's a 24v boat). The John Deere main engine has an identical pair of > big > alternators, so whenever the main is running the entire boat is fully > powered as if there was a generator running, but there isn't. When the > main > is running, for instance, the air conditioner is available if we want to > stay cool, without the need to start the generator (the wing). > > Arild was a gold mine of help on an extremely important part of the design > and I hope that he forgives me in failing to mention him before this. > > Alan Wagner > Tampa > With Passage of Time under construction > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List > > End of Passagemaking-Under-Power Digest, Vol 32, Issue 20 > ********************************************************* > > -- Peter Jacops Melkhoutsingel 29 Houtbay 7806 South Africa +27 (0)21 790 5905

> -----Original Message----- > From:Peter Jacops What surprise me is that people do not put fuel consumption high on their wish list. > Would it be because fuel is cheaper in the States? If so how long will that be? REPLY Not only fuel consumption, but tankage capacity should be a consideration. Passagemaking is more than just crossing oceans along the longest possible track. Many long distance passagemakers do so while never venturing more than 50 miles away from shore. They cruise along the coastlines. Longest jump between fuel stops is often only a few hundred miles. In recent times comparing prices has become very popular. But does it make sense to save $100 on a fill-up and suffer the penalty of much less mileage because you are dragging another few tons of fuel around with completely full tanks. The loss in mileage could well exceed the money saved compared to buying less fuel more frequently in much smaller portions. I'm aware that some list members do cruise in locales with very long jumps between fuel stops. But there are probably many more cruisers who boat in locales with much shorter distances. Would a 1000 - 1200 mile range not be sufficient? Do we need 3000 - 5000 mile range? If so, when and why? Does it make sense to have such huge fuel tanks that you take on a year's supply at once. Now you have to deal with fuel that destabilizes a couple of months after leaving the refinery. Apart from cleaning out water and particle contaminants, many fuel polishing systems are used primarily to rejuvenate destabilized fuel stored in tanks for a long time. Perhaps part of the design process is to ask when and where does it makes sense to have more than a two months or 1000 mile supply stored in the on-board fuel tanks. Could the available interior volume be better used for other storage? would the weight reduction with smaller tankage be a benefit in other ways. How about reduced draft? best regards to all Arild

Arild observed: any long distance passagemakers do so while never venturing more than 50 miles away from shore. They cruise along the coastlines. Longest jump between fuel stops is often only a few hundred miles. Scott replies: Here is where the distinction between a passage and coastal cruising become visible. While a coastal cruiser would embrace such design variables, a passagemaker must have the capacity for 2,500 to 3,000 miles of transit. The owner may not choose to make use of it, but to be classified as a Passagemaking capable vessel, this range should be considered a requirement. On a personal note, while I will be making a journey as Arild describes (mostly within 50 miles of a coastline) I hope to take on fuel infrequently. It seems to me reducing the number of times you take on fuel reduces your exposure to contaminated supply. However, the case could then be made that adopting this practice would result in a huge load of bad fuel, rather than a smaller sample your filters may be able to deal with. My perception is I'd rather find out quickly the supply was bad and return (within distance of the wing engine supply?) to the source and address the issue. Great points Arild, and as you suggest people investing in boats should consider these variables as they apply them to their voyaging goals. Scott Bulger, Alanui, N40II, Seattle WA

Although my primary interest is electrical, I have been employed for the past year by a trawler builder and am now responsible for systems designs as well as electrical. consequently I now spend a great deal of time contemplating the best use of available interior volume. Most of the daytime activity takes place in salon galley and pilot house. Cabins are primarily for sleeping and for times when you feel the need to get away from the rest of the crowd aboard. Be it the spouse or the whole family. Machinery space and tankage takes up a very large percentage of the volume leaving little room for storing personal effects and food. It occurred to me that in many boats there isn't always much space for food storage except the galley cupboards. So the question becomes; how much food can be stored and how long will it last. One of the things I recall most about Ben Grey's Idlewild was the huge storage compartment aft. This lazarette took up a considerable portion of hull space aft. Being devoid of partitions, it could hold case lots of food, equipment or even additional drums of fuel. But best of all it was versatile and able to change use as the need arose. regards Arild

After cruising the Caribbean for the past 9 years we have found long range capability to be very advantageous. With a draft hull, "lugging full tanks around" has little, if any, affect on fuel economy. I've never seen it, and our boat, "Francesca", a 44', trawler, has a very well calibrated (day tank) fuel measurement system. With the judicious use of biocides, we never had fuel go bad either. "Francesca" has a 650 gallon capacity and over a 1500 nm range. The advantage of having good fuel range is that fuel costs can vary as much as $1 or 2 per gallon from place to place. With our long range, we bought fuel only when and where we wished. Remember also that prior to June 2006, Venezuelan fuel was only 7 cents per gallon. (The latest report is that it is $1.76 per gallon now - still a good deal.) On the high side, fuel in Mexico and Belize can be very expensive. Just to head off the nay-sayers, we never experienced dirty fuel anywhere in the Caribbean, even when it was brought to the boat by cayuca (dug-out) and hand pumped to the boat. We have, however, experienced dirty fuel bought in the U.S. The choice of the right boat really concerns the buyer's understanding of his/her expanding needs as experience and confidence are gained. Ben Schuetz Visit our website at: http://www.cruisingfrancesca.org/

> -----Original Message----- > On a personal note, while I will be making a journey as Arild describes > (mostly within 50 miles of a coastline) I hope to take on fuel > infrequently. > It seems to me reducing the number of times you take on fuel reduces your > exposure to contaminated supply. However, the case could then be > made that adopting this practice would result in a huge load of bad fuel, > rather than a smaller sample your filters may be able to deal with. My perception is > I'd rather find out quickly the supply was bad and return (within distance > of the wing engine supply?) to the source and address the issue. > > Great points Arild, and as you suggest people investing in boats should > consider these variables as they apply them to their voyaging goals. > > Scott Bulger, REPLY Scott, you have touched on a key point. FUEL MANAGEMENT and tankage arrangement should be one of the key design elements when considering a vessel design. Having one or two large tanks may prove a handicap in dealing with a large quantity of bad or questionable fuel. Several smaller tanks may be a better bet despite the increased cost of additional piping and valves. Vessel trim with full and empty tanks is also something that needs consideration. We have seen plenty of posts from Krogen owners discussing the heeling characteristics as tanks are burned empty and the fuel is shifted side to side. What happens if you have a bad load of fuel and need to filter and pump all the fuel over to the other tank. AS a minimum a third tank with at least 48 hours fuel burn capacity is required. This now becomes the CLEAN FUEL reservoir and is never compromised by filling directly from shore. It only gets filled from the fuel polishing system. Second issue. Scott, you rightly point out the distinction between a coastal passage maker and a blue water passage maker. However the reality is you may buy a trans-oceanic vessel but will not get around to making such a passage for a long time. Meanwhile, what to do while coastal cruising in short hops? Do you still want to drag around a couple of tons extra fuel when you know you are near reliable fuel sources? A number of posts have been made regarding empty tanks and condensation. Having several smaller tanks means you can run a few tanks full and cap off the unused tanks. If this is a longer term situation, it might even make sense to fill the tank with Nitrogen. This will prevent the expansion /contraction breathing which is the biggest source of dragging in moist air that causes condensation. Now that I am working full time in a naval architect design office, I find myself spending a great deal of time considering all these issues. <Grin> Then I get to put concept to paper and eventually see it built. <VBG> Working full time with four other naval architects has proven to be quite the education. cheers Arild

Arild again made a number of great points, to which I comment: A: Several smaller tanks may be a better bet despite the increased cost of additional piping and valves. S: It's not the cost of piping and valves, but the complexity of manifolds and in/out combinations that must be balanced against the value. I was on a N46 with 5 tanks and the skipper spent a lot of time considering where fuel was coming from and going to. I concern myself with only Port or Starboard, list one way, draw from the heavy side till trim. A: Vessel trim with full and empty tanks is also something that needs consideration. We have seen plenty of posts from Krogen owners discussing the heeling characteristics as tanks are burned empty and the fuel is shifted side to side. S: Krogen owners aren't alone in this respect. Everyone I know spends time managing fuel load. You can tell how much fuel is on a N40 by how bow down it is! When below 20% of full my bootstripe at the bow submerges. Fill it up and out it comes! Boat also handles better with lots of fuel, seem more stable. A: What happens if you have a bad load of fuel and need to filter and pump all the fuel over to the other tank. S: If both tanks are full, where are you going to pump it? This is a real issue! A: As a minimum a third tank with at least 48 hours fuel burn capacity is required. This now becomes the CLEAN FUEL reservoir and is never compromised by filling directly from shore. It only gets filled from the fuel polishing system. S: Does this mean your two days away from the source of bad fuel? Maybe I'm crazy, but I see myself finding out asap and going back to the source and offloading the fuel back to them, then asking them to make it right. I guess this is naove but I'd like to find our asap that the fuel I got was bad. Second issue. A: However the reality is you may buy a trans-oceanic vessel but will not get around to making such a passage for a long time. S: This is what I did, bought the boat a year ago and departing now. A year is NOT a long time to learn a boat, as a matter of fact it seems a very short time at this moment :) A: A number of posts have been made regarding empty tanks and condensation. S: I subscribe to David Pascoes' believe that condensation in fuel tanks is an urban legend: http://www.yachtsurvey.com/myth_of_condensation_in_fuel_tanks.htm A: Now that I am working full time in a naval architect design office, I find myself spending a great deal of time considering all these issues. <Grin> Then I get to put concept to paper and eventually see it built. <VBG> Working full time with four other naval architects has proven to be quite the education. S: I for one can't wait to see the products that come from your efforts. I have no doubt the will be some of the finest engineered solutions brought to market anywhere! We are fortunate to have you as a contributor to this forum! Scott Scott Bulger, Alanui, N40II, Seattle WA

> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bulger > S: I for one can't wait to see the products that come from your > efforts. I have no doubt the will be some of the finest engineered solutions > brought to market anywhere! We are fortunate to have you as a contributor to this > forum! Scott REPLY - OFF LIST - please do not repost or repeat this in public My employer monitors the list and takes exception if I say anything les than complimentary. Hi Scott, sadly the product (Tradition Trawlers) is driven by marketing hype. AS a general thing if NH or Krogen or Selene does it, then they want to go one better. Unfortunately this leads to a numbers game of marketing one-upmanship. If NH spec a 200 HP diesel then Tradition has to have 250. If NH has a garburator, so does Tradition. The first T58 is so customized by acceding to client demands the boat is over loaded over crowded and is going to be very difficult for anyone to maintain and service. Last week We had to re-design the Engine room layout when I discovered that the gap between the main engine safety railing and the genset sound shield was only 10 inches. The Client is even more generous in girth than I am. If you look at any number of plans you will see that engine room / mechanical room takes up 35% - 50% of hull length. This permits the installation of machinery with adequate clearance for service work. The Tradition series only allows 25% of hull length. The rest of the below deck volume is given over to staterooms with marble floor tiles, mirrored ceilings, sumptuous SPA type showers and so on. Access to essential equipment is secondary. The sad part is, on the surface, the specs look terrific. Unfortunately, Mike Harling and I know better. We both agree there is a much better way to design such boats. But our hands are tied. However we do what we can within the limitations imposed upon us. regards Arild

> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bulger > S: It's not the cost of piping and valves, but the complexity of > manifolds and in/out combinations that must be balanced against the value. > I was on a N46 with 5 tanks and the skipper spent a lot of time considering > where fuel was coming from and going to. I concern myself with only Port or > Starboard, list one way, draw from the heavy side till trim. REPLY Well I was including manifolds as part of the necessary piping system. With four tanks on board I really didn't want four individual filler pipes scattered around the deck. Given today's environmental concerns and the punitive fines imposed by USCG if a spill occurs, I decided to go with an SPF system. SPF = single point Fuelling which is what aircraft uses. You only have one filler port which is located in a spill pocket complete with anti splash filtering. This naturally involves some substantial pipe manifolds valves and a transfer pump with a capacity equal to the marina gas pump. > A: As a minimum a third tank with at least 48 hours fuel burn capacity is > required. This now becomes the CLEAN FUEL reservoir and is never > compromised by filling directly from shore. It only gets filled from the > fuel polishing system. > S: Does this mean your two days away from the source of bad fuel? Maybe > I'm crazy, but I see myself finding out ASAP and going back to the source > and offloading the fuel back to them, then asking them to make it > right. REPLY Well I was thinking more along the line of biological contamination from bugs breeding in a tank that sits unused for a long period of time. > S: I subscribe to David Pascoe's' believe that condensation in > fuel tanks is an urban legend: > http://www.yachtsurvey.com/myth_of_condensation_in_fuel_tanks.htm REPLY David Pascoe is primarily a Florida surveyor. I wonder if he would reach the same conclusion if he did a lot of work up in the PNW where hot fuel from a long run cools down to around 40F on a typical winter day. regards Arild