Hello everyone, my first post here, I considered this one of the very best pup mails for several reasons. Spares and labeling: Labels are used in formula cars and by auto mechanics to indicate what piece or liquid, like oil, was changed and when. Sometimes they are mandatory by law (aircraft etc.). Always they will limit your liability and let you know and remember what you changed and when. They are a GREAT idea. Please encourage everyone to use this simple, easy safe , cheap convention. I was an aircraft mechanic in the air force, so I have some experience/exposure. Vacuum packing spares. I think this is another truly great idea. Have not used it, but I am currently a hobbiest with mechanical cnc machines, and can testify that bagged pieces parts etc. last indefinitely when oiled and vacuum packed. Many spares may be 30-40 years old, and are still as new when opened. HP, twins, and fuel burn. This is related to the krogen/dashews comparison as well. Someone mentioned these figures; The 60 hp Isuzu 4JB1 uses about .350 pounds per hour per horsepower. A 400 hp engine is more likely to be about .275. Please note the difference is 22% - quite a lot, IMO, and perfectly true depending on the engine. This depends on the engine - ie. a 400 hp engine may mass 400 kg or 2000 kg. The slower, bigger heavier engine will always have the lower fuel consumption, not due to engineering but due to economics. They were built for the efficiency. This does not mean a smaller engine cannot also be built for the efficiency, its just that the mass market does not support that at this time. For my taste, the dashews have the best boat, period. I don4t agree with some of their choices, but this I shall explain or reason. Fuel consumption. You can have i.e. it is possible to have low fuel consumption with twins, but most don4t as the owners / builders did not consider this as their priority at the time of build. In the us, people generally want big hp, and fuel has been and still is cheap. For comparison, consider that a safer, more rugged version compared to these boats is a fishing trawler that goes out 300 days a year or more. At over twice the displacement, and they only use 300-400 hp engines in general. And their fuel economy is very good, for their displacement. And even their fuel economy is 30% poorer than it could be, because they are used to thinking about speed, for economical reasons - they prefer to pay more, to get their catch to the market faster. The dashews figures are public, and I consider them perfectly reliable, based on a their large experience, and a very long history. They state that they use about an average of 65 hp per engine, at 11.5 knots - and this *includes hydraulics*, *includes dc*, *includes ac*. They use state of the art measurements, over a long time, and publish the figures. These figures are also correct and consistent with other engineering data. They have heavy alternators, about 8 hp, and very heavy hydraulics, about 12 hp, and their prop choice is for max economical speed, not max efficiency. Their cruising choice/preference is also for high speed over long passages. So what should the real fuel burn be ? Well, they use 65 hp x 2 @ 11.5 knots = 130 hp total. I would reduce this to 100 hp at 9,5-10 knots. I would further reduce this to 90 hp with bigger, slower 3-bladed prop (they use 26 inch 5-blade, maybe 34-38 inches is right. The draft increases say 12 inches, big deal. Now, I would remove the hydraulics, 2/3 of the dc, and 2/3 of the ac. I would not have hydraulic stabilizers, my preference, due to cost, complexity. I would have heavy solar cells, 2 kw or 3 kw. This removes the ac / dc load. So, we reduce from 90 hp to (- 2/3 of 8 hp for ac & dc, -12 hp for hydraulics hp,-18 hp) = 72 hp. This is the figure I will go with. Note that we have reduced consumption / hr from 130 to 72, or about 46%, at cost of 13% or 1.5 knots in speed. Mass - I would also go for approx 40% heavier for the loaded craft, at a cost of about 13% consumption in a displacement design. So we are at 72 * 1,15 or 83 hp. So my engines will be heavy commercial diesels, 65-70 hp each, tuned for minimum consumption at 10 knots. This effectively increases my range 46%, and makes my running costs extremely low. It limits my max speed to 13 knots, which I am very happy with, and means I use more fuel at very low speeds, due to the prop gearing being optimum at 10 knots only, also something I am very happy with. I will also use 3-bladed props, and economical stainless shafts and props, and isolation mountings. These are economical if done by heavy machinery engineering, rather than "yacht style". Please note that to have a viable business in the us/europe, you must charge 10x parts cost for everything. The dashews also refer to this in several places. Second note; re the dashews unsailboat. This is a 4-6 M $ boat, not a 500-800 k$ boat. Their target market is for the people who want the speed, want the stabilizers, and want the ac. Their clients could not care less about the extra economics of the fuel burn, as they will spend more on crew and other expenses tenfold and can afford it. The dashews have thus made a perfect choice as regards their target market. I also like the slim design, i.e. very long for the beam, and will do that on mine. What is my ideal boat - a home. Not a palace, but very nice. Nice = roomy, quiet, clean, comfortable. Cheap to run. Cheap to maintain. Very safe. Some of the many things the dashews have done right, in my opinion, note *very* much better than any krogen or nordhavn, are the heavy towing bit and front scantlings (dirt cheap, just welded metal, increses "impact point" safety by at least 500%), strong plating (also cheap) giving excellent passive safety (i.e. ability to survive extreme conditions), very heavy glazing on the windows (excellent choice ! i.m.o.). Safety of roduction boats. Note. *No* production boat on the market uses heavy glazin, 19 mm, and I am amazed at the foolishness of the manufacturers in this. As all manufacturers custom-build the portlights / mounts, the difference in cost is negligible for an extreme improvement in safety, reduced noise, and reduced power consumption due to better thermal isolation. Their only cost would be materials, maybe 2000$ for whole craft. What I will add to or improve on mine. 15-20 x 180 w solar cells on roof, invisible, 10 k$ investment, (cost not important in the dashews case, for me its my major cost, and indispensable, imho). Large solar capacity has the following benefits. Lowers consumption of fuel. Gives total indefinite independence of shore power including all-night radar 365 days/year, and limited air-conditioning. Allows unlimited fresh water with watermakers, as electricity consumption no longer requires genset or engine use. Also allows unlited use of radar and pc use, both significant benefits. Large batteries. 10x 240 amp hour batteries (12v) for 2400-2800 amp hours. This is double or triple normal, with several benefits. Reduces need for ballast, this offsets some of the cost. Doubles your battery life ! This reduces cost to zero or less over the lifetime of the batteries (10 years). Doubles your electric bilge pump life in accidents or emergencies ! Doubles you electronics life in same. Greatly increases comfort. Use of 220 v electric service only. I would also have 2x(5-8) kW inverters (10 kW peak), for running ALL appliances at 220 volts, and use standard but low-consumption home appliances, like fishermen, (I will also put in a 2 x 5 kW inverters for us appliances, although I will only have, initially, 220 v european stuff on mine. But I will be able to plug in any us appliance, tool etc. at will or need. Please note that the difference in wiring losses and lower amperage using european or us 220 v appliances means less losses, safer, cheaper). Also note that the big inverter means you don4t need expensive true sine wave when the inverters are big, and they are 10x cheaper / watt (under 1000 $ each). Also, running 220 ac vs 12 v or 24 v dc means 10-20% less electricity consumption / day ! The inverter eats up 9% but you still save 11 %. And the wiring savings may be 10-20.000 $ ! Many of these comments apply to these boats only - i.e. true displacement passagemakers. All these comments apply to the question someone asked, re: what boat should I buy, whats best, and whats economical. My comments are for information and to give things to think about. I invite (hopefully constructive) criticism. In conclusion, some changes in thinking/assumptions can -increase you range 46% or reduce you consumption 46% -double your passive safety -cut 40-50% of your build cost in some areas (wiring, appliances, electrics) I would further like to say that all the passive and most active parts of these things are in normal daily use on 10.000+ commercial fishing craft and are much more proven than any "yacht-style" innovation. The only difference are solar and big batteries, which trawlers don4t need, due to their being designed for a different , narrow range of use. These benefits depend on the proper application of the right hardware. For example, adding two solar panels will do nothing for you. You must commit and have a proper solar bank, to really be able to do it this way. Likewise, just getting a 3000 w inverter instead of a 2000 w one will not work. You need at least 5 kW, the 5/10 kW peak is the only correct choice, imho. Hannu