Empathy List Archives

SE

Scott E. Bulger

Thu, Feb 28, 2008 2:18 PM

Bill,

I'll try to answer this honestly, without slipping into a political diatribe
that will result in the thread being shut down.

Fuel is a factor, but honestly it's insignificant in the scheme of cruising
or Passagemaking. If your of a mindset that fuel is an issue I think buying
an older, perhaps wooden sailboat would be more appropriate course of action
than continuing on the route of buying a diesel powered passagemaker.
Remember, this is a list about Passagemaking Under Power. So, in that
context the price of oil is a minor factor. I've taken on fuel 3 times
since leaving Seattle in August. I'll take on fuel again in Panama and
again in FL. So, the other costs of the trip make fuel a factor, but not a
big one. More comments below:

Bill asked: What are the thoughts of oil-powered-voyagers as we in
the US sustain/maintain this elevated price of oil?

[scott] Hmm, in El Salvador the fuel price is above $4.00/gallon. This
isn't a US issue, it's a world issue. Also the price isn't elevated if your
from Canada or Europe, it only seems elevated to those of us from the US who
haven't been paying what the rest of the world has been paying for decades.

Bill: Scale down trips? More time at anchor?

[scott] It seems reasonable to shorten a trip if you decide that the cost
of fuel is prohibitive, but you can also slow down. Just pulling the
throttle back a hundred RPM can save a LOT of fuel.

Bill: Better efficiency aboard present vessels?

[scott] Best achieved by keeping the bottom and prop clean and SLOWING
down.

Bill: A more efficient platform, perhaps catamaran or
trimaran?

[scott] My thoughts on multihulls are well known. If you rarely need to
tie up to a dock and plan to keep the boat a long time a multihull might
make sense. Again, if your thinking along those lines, Sail is likely a
reasonable alternative as well.

Bill: Resort back to sail power, or a motorsailor? On
perhaps a more efficient hullform?

[scott] What do you mean "back" to sail? There is nothing about sail that
is "back", it's just different. A power passagemaker is more a choice of
lifestyle and cost than anything else. I believe it costs at least 50% more
to have a power passagemaker. It's less about the basic boat then how you
use it. We have A/C, big watermakers, a fridge and a freezer, wing engines,
big generators so we can run our A/C and charge our batteries. The sailors
here in the river are enjoying life as much or more than we, just making a
few different decisions to keep it affordable. While we may choose to tie
up in a marina more often, our sail brethren either anchor or use a mooring
ball. It's not unlike traveling across America on a sight seeing trip and
staying at a Motel 6, Holiday Inn or a Hyatt. Everyone is having great
experiences, there are just varying cost components and comfort levels
involved. One is not better than another, just a bit different.

Or what are the combinations of the above or other
alternatives?

[scott] If oil prices are an issue, the number one thing you can do to make
a difference is slow down. I suspect as you weigh that in your voyaging
plans the throttle will creep right back to where it was and you'll simply
make a few more meals on board rather than eating at the marina dining room.

Sincerely,

Scott Bulger, Alanui, N40II, Seattle WA
Currently in El Salvador

Bill, I'll try to answer this honestly, without slipping into a political diatribe that will result in the thread being shut down. Fuel is a factor, but honestly it's insignificant in the scheme of cruising or Passagemaking. If your of a mindset that fuel is an issue I think buying an older, perhaps wooden sailboat would be more appropriate course of action than continuing on the route of buying a diesel powered passagemaker. Remember, this is a list about Passagemaking Under Power. So, in that context the price of oil is a minor factor. I've taken on fuel 3 times since leaving Seattle in August. I'll take on fuel again in Panama and again in FL. So, the other costs of the trip make fuel a factor, but not a big one. More comments below: Bill asked: What are the thoughts of oil-powered-voyagers as we in the US sustain/maintain this elevated price of oil? [scott] Hmm, in El Salvador the fuel price is above $4.00/gallon. This isn't a US issue, it's a world issue. Also the price isn't elevated if your from Canada or Europe, it only seems elevated to those of us from the US who haven't been paying what the rest of the world has been paying for decades. Bill: Scale down trips? More time at anchor? [scott] It seems reasonable to shorten a trip if you decide that the cost of fuel is prohibitive, but you can also slow down. Just pulling the throttle back a hundred RPM can save a LOT of fuel. Bill: Better efficiency aboard present vessels? [scott] Best achieved by keeping the bottom and prop clean and SLOWING down. Bill: A more efficient platform, perhaps catamaran or trimaran? [scott] My thoughts on multihulls are well known. If you rarely need to tie up to a dock and plan to keep the boat a long time a multihull might make sense. Again, if your thinking along those lines, Sail is likely a reasonable alternative as well. Bill: Resort back to sail power, or a motorsailor? On perhaps a more efficient hullform? [scott] What do you mean "back" to sail? There is nothing about sail that is "back", it's just different. A power passagemaker is more a choice of lifestyle and cost than anything else. I believe it costs at least 50% more to have a power passagemaker. It's less about the basic boat then how you use it. We have A/C, big watermakers, a fridge and a freezer, wing engines, big generators so we can run our A/C and charge our batteries. The sailors here in the river are enjoying life as much or more than we, just making a few different decisions to keep it affordable. While we may choose to tie up in a marina more often, our sail brethren either anchor or use a mooring ball. It's not unlike traveling across America on a sight seeing trip and staying at a Motel 6, Holiday Inn or a Hyatt. Everyone is having great experiences, there are just varying cost components and comfort levels involved. One is not better than another, just a bit different. Or what are the combinations of the above or other alternatives? [scott] If oil prices are an issue, the number one thing you can do to make a difference is slow down. I suspect as you weigh that in your voyaging plans the throttle will creep right back to where it was and you'll simply make a few more meals on board rather than eating at the marina dining room. Sincerely, Scott Bulger, Alanui, N40II, Seattle WA Currently in El Salvador

SE

Scott E. Bulger

Thu, Feb 28, 2008 2:33 PM

Oh Lord help me keep my cool... There is so little in this posting that's
on topic it's hard to comment

Kevin: "the real cost on cruising under power will be the lost value in
fuelish yachts being operated fuelishly-they were wrong when they were
concieved, often wrong in operation and will be difficult to sell with fuel
costs going where they are bound to go.

[scott] The market will establish the resale value of the boat based on
supply and demand. Time for recreation will always be a factor to many who
will choose faster boats so they can extend their cruising area with limited
time. I doubt many "Passagemakers" will fall into the category of boats
that loose value because the price of fuel goes up.

Kevin: Relative to boat design most builders know their market (free
market) and buyers given the choice between 50 or 300 Horsepower on a 20 ton
trawler yacht-make the traditional more is better route, the ethic of less
is best, simplify-simplify-is not within most of us.

[scott] I couldn't disagree with you more. Few of the people I know are
not aware of the relationship between HP and displacement hull needs. I
don't see any boats out here with 400hp motors. If your talking about the
high HP boats like Sea Ray, Meridian or the Italian jobs, I don't think they
fall into the Passagemaker category.

Kevin: These lessons are being ignored in our automobile industry, we could
be making efficient turbocharged/intercooled sub 1000cc 4 passanger cars in
diesel or gas that exceed 50mpg-do 0-60 in sub 10 seconds and have speeds
exceeding 100mph but instead the technology and research is directed towards
the 600HP/200mph feel good car.

[scott] Huh? That's funny, in Mazatlan and PV I saw a bunch of Ford and
Chevy cars that fit the category of sub compact cars, but by far the ruling
auto is a Nissan. The same kind you can buy in the states. Perhaps
relaxing the safety standards and having tort reform would do more to
advance the trend in building small cars in the US?

Kevin: In 1951 0-60 in a Jag XK120 was 10 seconds--in 1966 VWs were pokey
at 20 seconds, today sub 3 seconds is the standard and anything that takes
more than 8 seconds is "dangerously slow"-That's what we are being marketed
and thats what we buy.

[scott] Yea but the Jag is a terrible passage maker. It doesn't have good
sleeping accommodations, doesn't have good range and won't even float, so I
think everyone would agree it's a lousy boat! : )

Kevin: So leave a "clean wake", and be moderate in your speeds, do some
reengineering when you repower in terms of HP needed and the costs of
Voyaging Under Power will be modest and your resale will be better.

[scott] Here I couldn't agree with you more!

Oh Lord help me keep my cool... There is so little in this posting that's on topic it's hard to comment Kevin: "the real cost on cruising under power will be the lost value in fuelish yachts being operated fuelishly-they were wrong when they were concieved, often wrong in operation and will be difficult to sell with fuel costs going where they are bound to go. [scott] The market will establish the resale value of the boat based on supply and demand. Time for recreation will always be a factor to many who will choose faster boats so they can extend their cruising area with limited time. I doubt many "Passagemakers" will fall into the category of boats that loose value because the price of fuel goes up. Kevin: Relative to boat design most builders know their market (free market) and buyers given the choice between 50 or 300 Horsepower on a 20 ton trawler yacht-make the traditional more is better route, the ethic of less is best, simplify-simplify-is not within most of us. [scott] I couldn't disagree with you more. Few of the people I know are not aware of the relationship between HP and displacement hull needs. I don't see any boats out here with 400hp motors. If your talking about the high HP boats like Sea Ray, Meridian or the Italian jobs, I don't think they fall into the Passagemaker category. Kevin: These lessons are being ignored in our automobile industry, we could be making efficient turbocharged/intercooled sub 1000cc 4 passanger cars in diesel or gas that exceed 50mpg-do 0-60 in sub 10 seconds and have speeds exceeding 100mph but instead the technology and research is directed towards the 600HP/200mph feel good car. [scott] Huh? That's funny, in Mazatlan and PV I saw a bunch of Ford and Chevy cars that fit the category of sub compact cars, but by far the ruling auto is a Nissan. The same kind you can buy in the states. Perhaps relaxing the safety standards and having tort reform would do more to advance the trend in building small cars in the US? Kevin: In 1951 0-60 in a Jag XK120 was 10 seconds--in 1966 VWs were pokey at 20 seconds, today sub 3 seconds is the standard and anything that takes more than 8 seconds is "dangerously slow"-That's what we are being marketed and thats what we buy. [scott] Yea but the Jag is a terrible passage maker. It doesn't have good sleeping accommodations, doesn't have good range and won't even float, so I think everyone would agree it's a lousy boat! : ) Kevin: So leave a "clean wake", and be moderate in your speeds, do some reengineering when you repower in terms of HP needed and the costs of Voyaging Under Power will be modest and your resale will be better. [scott] Here I couldn't agree with you more!

KK

Kevin Kearney

Thu, Feb 28, 2008 5:56 PM

Scott, I can say from history, Gas rationing during WW2 and The Oil Crisis in 1973 that the resale value of heavy fuel users declined and fuel misers increased-I can see some relationship with boats. However, the 50gph vs 10gph vs 1gph relationships in boating will have a market result, If people/listers are asking What about fuel prices?-it is not imy opinion that the operating costs,of fuel use which are a small percentage of the total boat operating costs, but the Capital Costs ,the buy at one price and eventually sell for less. The percent of depreciation, which will be most costly. Within the Long Range community nobody is doing the 50gph thing , but some are doing the 10 vs 1gph thing--and those boats that use less to do some sort of hull speed will be "worth more" when they sell--Look at boat sales and use in europe, or car sales.

As to OEM boatbuilder engine size choices for displacement boats, I would make the arguement based on Europe again. Look at the HP numbers from a Broker like H20 in France for say Dutch built 40-45 footers and Yachtworld for the same style of boat in the US. Tell me that there is not an order of magnitude difference in these HP numbers and consequential fuel use numbers, but then again Europe thinks our fuel prices are really cheap.

I went into the marketing issue of bigger is better because its there-has been and needs to change, Ford can't seem to stop building F150 pickups, they can lay off workers,promise green cars, but can't kick the bigger/faster thing. Volvo "has to" make SUVs--even their recently introduced small car the C30 came with a 200plus HP engine, instead of more traditonal values in volvoworld of efficient/safe-they sell the C30 in the rest of the world with 100hp gas and diesels, not here , and not because of saftey or tort issues. Volvos sales last year in the US went from 139,000 to 106,000, but Volvo is being managed by the person who previously brought us the Lincoln Navigator-bigger profit margins by building bigger cars, and they are laying off staff as well.

I did close with remarks-ways of operating our generally efficient displacement boats that you agreed with-you can see efficiency in your own wake, when your stern squats and your bow rises, back of the revs save fuel/money and go just a little slower. When repowering, look into the requiremets of the boat, A/B, PC, D/L, Consult with Skenes ELEMENTS OF YACHT DESIGN, Gerrs, PROPELLER HANDBOOK, VOYAGING UNDER POWER, First and Third editions, Buehlers TROLLER YACHT BOOK. Make choices on true engineering not the compromised market oriented engineering that comes from "MOST" not all builders.

We as Americans have been marketed/brainwashed for a long time,that cheap never ending fuels will be available. We can do better, think for ourselves,the references are out there, comparative countries where fuel has been more expensive for a long time can be an example for us to learn from. So when I contend that the most costly thing about $100 barrels of oil will be the severe depreciation of fuelish boats and fuelish operators--its a hopeful remark that we as a community of fuel users will become more ethical in our choices-that the manufactures will also move in that direction-and that we can all do something more than go to war to get our fix.

Fuel stingy Trawlers are part of the solution-Fuelish boats are part of the problem.

Safe Boating Kevin

"Scott E. Bulger" scottebulger@gmail.com wrote:
Oh Lord help me keep my cool... There is so little in this posting that's
on topic it's hard to comment