power cheaper than sail ??
Joe Della Barba
David Smalley wrote:
SNIP
I now believe that a properly equiped passagemeker gets from point to
point cheaper and faster than a sailboat, _especially_ when you
average
it out over years. Sails and rigging are _expensive_.
SNIP
I would have to question that.
First off, $50,000 will buyt a boat that will sail transatlantic no
problem. If you don't care too much about getting a big boat, $50,000
will pay for the boat, gear, and the whole trip.
I can't imagine that any $50,000 powerboat could do a transatlantic
trip safely.
Direct operating costs:
Let us say you sail around the world in a 40 foot sailboat. You sail
30,000 miles and wear out your sails. You are looking at $10,000 -
$15,000 for a decent set of new sails (and it could be done for much
less). Assume you did not manage to dismast the boat. Say $0.50 per
mile for sails.
Let us say you also motor for 3,000 of those 30,000 miles and use 500
gallons of fuel and 500 hours on the engine. This is a pretty small
amount of money for fuel and 500 hours is not too significant.
Let us say you have some kind of powerboat with twin Ford Lehman 120s
and do the same trip.
Rough guess is 30,000 miles at 7 knots is 4,286 engine hours. Another
rough gues of 3 GPH combined (this may be low??) gives you 12,858
gallons of fuel. Depending on the price of fuel, this comes out pretty
close to the per mile cost of the sailboat. BUT after 4,286 hours
those engines just might need an overhaul. This would drive the price
way over the sailboat, never mind that the sailboat likely cost MUCH
less to start with.
Not to say the power trip wouldn't be fun, but I doubt it would be
cheaper.
Joe N3HGB
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
You're thinking only of point-to-point costs--and when it comes to
passagemaking, you're right. But you're starting from a premise that's
both accurate--no $50k powerboat could trans-Atlantic, while an even
less expensive sailboat can--and inaccurate 'cuz you're comparing apples
and kumquats...the cost of owning a dog vs. a owning racehorse. To have
a fair comparison, you have to compare the total cost of owning,
maintaining and operating comparable sized boats. And, on average, it
costs 20% MORE--including fuel costs--to own, maintain, and operate a
sailboat than *a comparable size powerboat.*
For the sake of argument, let's assume both boats are 30-35'...that
means twin engines for the powerboat...cabin with systems for both.
Smaller single engine boats will obviously cost less.
Except for those items relating to the primary means of propulsion, the
machinery and equipment on powerboats and sailboats is fairly
comparable... Both have hulls and bottoms, hatches and portlights,
cleats and rails stanchions etc...both have sanitation and plumbing
systems...both have electronics...electrical--AC and 12v--systems...and
at least one engine...about an equal number of both have generators and
electric anchor windlasses. So the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and
repairing everything BUT the equipment related to the boat's primary
propulsion system is about the same for power or sail.
But then there's the propulsion system. The vast majority of powerboats
have gas engines...you don't see many diesels under 40' (except on
trawlers, and a comparison of the average cost of owning a sailboat vs a
same size trawler would bury you!)...and about all a powerboater has to
do to run a gas engine without needing any repairs for years is change
the oil every 50 hours and the engine intake water impeller every
spring. On average--and that's what we're talking about there--a
powerboat will see less than 100 hrs of actual engine running time a
year. So assuming a max average for a twin engine boat of 20 gals/hr at
a $1.75/gal...annual propulsion maintenance and operation
costs--including fuel--are under $3k a year for at least the first 10
years of a powerboat's life.
But for a sailboat, there there are heavy weather sails, light air sails
(note the plural: "sails," not just one...but entire sets)...storm
sails, spinnakers... The cost of sails alone is more than the average
powerboat's 10 year average fuel cost. And there is ALWAYS something
that requires repair or replacement...sails get torn, winches wear
out...sheets and halyards chafe...winch handles and whisker poles go
overboard...and then there's the engine:
On a sailboat, it's usually a diesel which rarely sees any use other
than "cold start, short hop"--which is the worst thing you can do to a
diesel engine...fuel consumption is so low that it sits in the tank and
grows things that are constantly causing fuel related engine problems.
Same problems with a generator.
In '96 I bought a 16 (at the time) yr old 32' twin engine
powerboat...gas engines, gas generator...in non-running and
uninhabitable condition. I've spent about $15k to make her pristine
again, but only about $3k of it was spent on the engines and
genset...both of which have been happily purring like kittens for nearly
4 years now. Another member of my YC has 10 yr old Catalina 30...the
same year I bought my bought, he spent nearly $10k for just a new main,
2 jibs, and 2 self-tailing winches...I could have completely repowered
for less than that!
Yes...there are sailboat owners out there who believe that spending
anything more than the price of a roll of duct tape and and tube of 5200
to keep a sailboat running is unnecessary and that the price of cotter
pins is outrageous...their hulls don't shine, their sails are blown
out...their engines smoke...you know the type--and there are just as
many powerboats held together with spit and bailing wire. But ON AVERAGE
it's gonna cost the owner of a sailboat 20% more--INCLUDING FUEL--to
maintain a sailboat to specs than it costs the owner of the same size
powerboat.
Came as a surprise to me too...
Peggie
jacque
Isn't this whole argument about comparing a soufflé to a bagel?
Jacque
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc. wrote in message
<389C59DD...@bellsouth.net>...
Joe Della Barba
I diagree with your premise FAR more than David's.
If you are talking about boats used for local cruising planing
powerboats will eat up much more money. A friend of mine bought a 30'
powerboat brand new with twin V8s and she got little use after he
discovered how much fuel she could go through. It was about 15 GPH per
engine, or about 1 NMPG. And then after about 3 years and a couple
hundred hours use the boat needed the engines rebuilt. My sailboat
engine lasted over 10 years and 3,000+ hours. At planing speeds you
are going through almost a DOLLAR a minute. I rent airplanes for less
than that, including gas, and they go much faster. I met a guy who had
his 35' Chris Craft trucked to Florida every year because the truck
fee was less than the gas.
Besides for the fuel cost, most powerboats seem to be very poorly put
together and end up needing major work after awhile. I used to run a
marine outfitting shop and was AMAZED at how bad many powerboats were.
Even the good ones were not cheap to maintain. We winterized a Viking
43 (?44 maybe) and I could not imagine what it would end up costing.
After changing oil and filters on 2 big GM diesels and a generator,
winterizing those three engines, winterizing 3 airconditioners, the
water system, the heads, the showers, the icemaker, and the washdown
pump I think it was over $1100.
As far as sails and winches, my nice stainless Barients work as well
as they did new in 1973. For local cruising you can get by with a main
and furling jib. For a 30 foot boat I can't imagine they would cost
over $4,000 and should last about 10 years. My $3500 furling jib is on
about year 11 and has at least 2 more to go. Just like a racing
powerboat will go through engines quckly, none of the above applies to
racing boats.
IMHO the only reason to get ANY kind of boat is because you want to,
not because you think it is cheaper than another. If you LIKE planing
powerboats then you get one and deal with the fuel cost.
We all get old and by trawlers sooner or later anyway :)
Joe
C&C 35 MKI Coquina
Rich Mechaber
<snip>
> We all get old and by trawlers sooner or later anyway :)
Bite your tongue! Trawlers are fine boats for young and old. Roomy,
capable, seaworthy, well-built, reliable, fun.
Yours,
Rich Mechaber, a lover of all boats independent of mode of propulsion
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
>
> But how the hell could I ever face my friends if I owned a <yech> powerboat?
Perhaps you need a better class of friends. :-)
> Isn't this whole argument about comparing a soufflé to a bagel?
It's a mistakes to try to compare the relative MERITS of souffles and
bagels (or sail vs. power)...the price or snob appeal of each is
immaterial...which one is "better" depends upon what you want/need from
it. A good souffle is indeed delicious...but so is a sandwich of smoked
salmon, capers and cream cheese with watercress. You can't slice a
souffle to make such a sandwich, but you can make an outstanding one
using a bagel. So, while a souffle certainly has plenty of merit, if
you're packing a lunch to take aboard for the day, the sandwich made
with the bagel is a far better--and equally delicious on its own
merits--choice regardless of whether it costs more or less than the
souffle.
Peggie
Steven Shelikoff
Peggie, that's just not true, and it's because you're being led astray
by some of your assumptions. Let's take your 30'-35' boat comparison.
Engines: the sailboat engine will cost many times less to maintain and
operate than the powerboat's engine[s]. Equipment: The sailboat will
typically have much less equipment to maintain. The sailboat will be
less likely to have power consuming options like AC, refer, electric
head, etc. Sails: You're talking about a well equipped cruising
sailboat. Most sailboats only carry a main, jib, genny, and maybe a
chute. That's only 4 sails on average. The next sail to add is storm
sails, which are small. Usually only racing boats carry all the sails
you mentioned. Fuel problems: A sailboat wouldn't have any more or
less fuel problems than a powerboat that has the same amount if usage.
Most powerboats sit at the dock all the time because they are so
expensive to run. In that case, you have the same stagnant fuel
problem, but multiplied because the tanks are so much bigger. And your
friend with the Cat 30, unless he's going racing, he got ripped off.
Racing changes the rules for both sail and power boats.
All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
sailing then powering.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / / http://www.averstar.com/customers/maritime.html
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
>
> Peggy,
> I diagree with your premise FAR more than David's.
> If you are talking about boats used for local cruising planing
> powerboats will eat up much more money.
Noo...they'll burn more fuel per hour, but I included that in the annual
cost.
>A friend of mine bought a 30'
> powerboat brand new with twin V8s and she got little use after he
> discovered how much fuel she could go through. It was about 15 GPH per
> engine, or about 1 NMPG. And then after about 3 years and a couple
> hundred hours use the boat needed the engines rebuilt.
That's only bit of anecdotal evidence, hardly the norm. Your friend
obviously could not afford his boat, 'cuz no engines that are maintained
should need rebuilding after only a couple hundred hours...and sitting
is harder on engines than abusing them. The flip side of that coin is,
my engines are now 20 years old, have over 1100 hrs on 'em, and are
showing NO signs needing a rebuild. AND--you're still only comparing
fuel costs, not the total cost of owning and maintaining.
> At planing speeds you
> are going through almost a DOLLAR a minute.
Not quite...do the math: a 454 burns about 24 gals hr at 3000
rpm...that's about .4/gpm. Around here, we pay only about $1.30/gal at
the fuel dock...but our gas prices have always been low, so I used
$1.75/gal. $1.75 x .4 = $.70/minute. But for how long? On one hand,
everyone knows that powerboaters are destination oriented...we go till
we get there, then put down the hook or tie up to another boat or a
dock...and then 4-36 hours later, we go home again. Sailors, OTOH, spend
entire days/weeks underway.
> I rent airplanes for less
> than that, including gas, and they go much faster.
You also go much farther than the average powerboater goes too.
> I met a guy who had
> his 35' Chris Craft trucked to Florida every year because the truck
> fee was less than the gas.
Again...you're trying to compare ONLY sail vs. power passagemaking
costs--the cost of fuel to get there vs. sailing there.
> Besides for the fuel cost, most powerboats seem to be very poorly put
> together and end up needing major work after awhile.
No more so than most production sailboats.
> I used to run a
> marine outfitting shop and was AMAZED at how bad many powerboats were.
> Even the good ones were not cheap to maintain. We winterized a Viking
> 43 (?44 maybe) and I could not imagine what it would end up costing.
> After changing oil and filters on 2 big GM diesels and a generator,
> winterizing those three engines, winterizing 3 airconditioners, the
> water system, the heads, the showers, the icemaker, and the washdown
> pump I think it was over $1100.
Whoa...you just got way beyond propulsion. The same size sailboat would
incur the same costs to winterize the pressurized water system, showers,
heads, washdown pump...and maybe even an icemaker (which btw, needs no
winterizing other than to turn off and disconnect the water supply and
let it make ice from any water left in it before turning it off).
But you're also getting way beyond the "average" boat: only 4% of the
registered boats in the US are 30'+...less than 1% are over 40'...and
that's about the same percentage that have diesel engines--WHICH, btw,
are SUPPOSED to cost so much less to maintain than gas. So which is it,
Joe?
> As far as sails and winches, my nice stainless Barients work as well
> as they did new in 1973.
Uh-huh...and some people believe the same is true of an equally old
toilet. :-) You've never had to replace ANY parts, spend ANY money on
'em???
> For local cruising you can get by with a main
> and furling jib.
But just "getting by" isn't what we're talking about. We could all "get
by" without a boat at all!
> For a 30 foot boat I can't imagine they would cost
> over $4,000 and should last about 10 years.
I saw the bills--a new main, 2 jibs, 2 winches, roller furling...over
$9k..boat was 10 yrs old.
> My $3500 furling jib is on
> about year 11 and has at least 2 more to go. Just like a racing
> powerboat will go through engines quckly, none of the above applies to
> racing boats.
Agreed...racing isn't the norm.
> IMHO the only reason to get ANY kind of boat is because you want to,
> not because you think it is cheaper than another. If you LIKE planing
> powerboats then you get one and deal with the fuel cost.
> We all get old and by trawlers sooner or later anyway :)
Again...there you go with the fuel costs, as if that's where ALL the
cost is. It's not. But if you want to compare costs using only fuel as a
measurement, fine...but it's not an accurate comparison. But I can't
figure out why it's so important to you to believe that it costs less to
own a sailboat than it does to own a powerboat...'cuz that's not why you
own a sailboat, nor why I own a powerboat. We own what makes us both
happy...and if cost were the driving factor, neither of us would prob'ly
own a boat! :-)
Peggie
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> But, Peggie- you seem to be ignoring the financial consequences of a
> couple of important points that Joe made:
> 1) The sailboat will be much cheaper to buy (Remember the "cost of
> money" argument)
Not necessarily. No one is claiming you have to buy new. I paid $25k for
my boat...and have put another $15k into re-habbing (different from
maintaining) it...my total invesestment is only about $40k. Not too many
32' sailboats, comparably equipped with cabin amenities, could be bought
for less...and I paid cash...so I no "cost of money" in it other than
what I'm losing by not having it in the market (which is a
bundle!!)...but so would the sailboat owner.
> 2) An ocean-capable powerboat will need to have top-notch diesel
> propulsion, (and probably a larger minimum size than a sailboat) not
> gas as in your example.
Also remember--we're comparing *comparable size boats,* not the minimum
size powerboat required to make it from San Francisco to Hawaii vs the
minimum size sailboat that can do it. Assuming that nothing less than
about 100' megayacht (power) could do it, I suspect you'd be absolutely
appalled at what it would cost to operate and maintain a 100' sailboat!
:-)))
> However, I do agree with the gist of your comments: "The wind may be
> free, but harnessing it isn't!"
Precisely the point I was trying to make...but some sailors are harder
to convince than others. :-)
Peggie
jacque
aren't going to be very happy with a bagel, even if it's cheaper, and if you
like bagels, you're not even going to go into the soufflé department. So
why compare the cost?
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc. wrote in message
<389C736F...@bellsouth.net>...
>jacque wrote: ?
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
> marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
> sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
> sailing then powering.
>
> Steve
You're sure that's the reason. You've surveyed the powerboaters at
length and determined that is the case, right? Is this the pattern for
every day of the week or is the pattern for weekends, too? Do the
powerboaters go out for shorter periods of time because they can do so
and still have fun and get back to their slips? Do they leave after you
do in the morning and get back before you do in the afternoon? Is there
anything strange or unusual in your immediate area that might restrict
powerboaters?
Seems to me that what is behind your posit is...a fantastic leap of
faith.
--
Harry Krause
------------
A man is known by the company he avoids.
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
>
> But that's the whole point, isn't it?
I think you missed the point. It's about what's appropriate for your
circumstances, it's not about cost or which is better. You may be
partial to souffles, but smoked salmon on a bagel isn't anything to turn
up your nose at...and if it's better for the occasion than a souffle,
then that's what you choose...you DON'T insist that only a souffle will
do!
> if you
> like bagels, you're not even going to go into the soufflé department.
You could never face your friends if you bought a powerboat...but you'd
offer them a commercially packaged souffle???? Hmmmmm...VERY
interesting....
Peggie
> Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc. wrote in message
> <389C736F...@bellsouth.net>...
> >jacque wrote: ?
> >
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> Let's take your 30'-35' boat comparison.
> Engines: the sailboat engine will cost many times less to maintain and
> operate than the powerboat's engine[s].
On what do you base that? Unless you have a log for 2 comparable size
boats, showing every dime over 10 years, you can only be making an
assumption.
> Equipment: The sailboat will
> typically have much less equipment to maintain. The sailboat will be
> less likely to have power consuming options like AC, refer, electric
> head, etc.
Except for the toilet--and manual toilets need even more maintenance
than electric--none of those items incur any maintenance costs.
> Sails: You're talking about a well equipped cruising
> sailboat.
Yep...vs. the same size well equipped power cruiser.
> Fuel problems: A sailboat wouldn't have any more or
> less fuel problems than a powerboat that has the same amount if usage.
There, you're almost right...if sailboats ran their engines as many
hours a year as powerboats, they'd have fewer engine problems...'cuz
lack of use is harder on engines than constant use. But gas engines can
take more abuse--and to a diesel engine, constant cold start-short hop,
use and no other IS abuse--AND neglect...and thereforeshouldn't cost any
more to maintain than the family car engine (ONLY the engine).
> Most powerboats sit at the dock all the time because they are so
> expensive to run.
Another assumption. How many people have you asked whether their boats
sit at the dock because they can't afford to take them out? Actually,
fuel costs rarely have anything to do with it. Those that sit, do so
because their owners don't really have the time for the boat they
thought they would...typical use is 100+ hrs the first year, maybe 75
the second...and 25-50 the third and beyond. And every powerboat you
can point to that never leaves the dock, I can point to a sailboat that
never does....but you're only presenting anecdotal evidence, whereas
mine comes from industry surveys etc.
>In that case, you have the same stagnant fuel
> problem, but multiplied because the tanks are so much bigger.
Gas doesn't grow "bugs" as diesel does, so the same problems do not
exist on gas powered boats. Our biggest problem is moisture condensation
in the tank...nothng compared to the fuel related problems caused by old
diesel.
> And your
> friend with the Cat 30, unless he's going racing, he got ripped off.
> Racing changes the rules for both sail and power boats.
He does race...but only in club races. And unless you know specifically
what he bought--what makes, sizes, etc.--I doubt you can say
definitively that he "got ripped off." He may have bought higher
quality than he needed...higher quality than you would have...but
neither you nor I know what he bought, I only know what he spent.
> All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
> marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
> sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
> sailing then powering.
Not necessarily. Yes it's cheaper to spend an entire day underway on a
sailboat than it is on a powerboat...but it costs very little to go out
to an anchorage...so fuel costs are not a reason to stay in the slip.
All you're offering are assumptions, Steve...nothing else. And what it
costs--or doesn't cost--you to own and maintain your own boat may or may
not have anything to do with whether you skimp, overspend, or just
maintain to specs. I don't care...all I know is what industry surveys
indicate. I can see this leading to another endless circular
debate...which I have no time for...so I leave it here.
Peggie
Jere Lull
> For the sake of argument, let's assume both boats are 30-35'...that
> means twin engines for the powerboat...cabin with systems for both.
> Smaller single engine boats will obviously cost less.
> (snip stipulation that we're talking about boats with comparable
> equipment)
>
> But then there's the propulsion system. The vast majority of powerboats
> have gas engines...you don't see many diesels under 40' (except on
> trawlers, and a comparison of the average cost of owning a sailboat vs a
> same size trawler would bury you!)...and about all a powerboater has to
> do to run a gas engine without needing any repairs for years is change
> the oil every 50 hours and the engine intake water impeller every
> spring. On average--and that's what we're talking about there--a
> powerboat will see less than 100 hrs of actual engine running time a
> year. So assuming a max average for a twin engine boat of 20 gals/hr at
> a $1.75/gal...annual propulsion maintenance and operation
> costs--including fuel--are under $3k a year for at least the first 10
> years of a powerboat's life.
Here I disagree as my powerboat friends seem to require more maintenance,
including replacing plugs and wires, valve adjustments and "odd" problems
requiring advanced training such as computer chips going funky. Most
sailboat power plants are quite a bit simpler and greatly de-tuned,
requiring less overall maintenance, but we can ignore this for a first
approximation and call maintenance costs even.
Sails last MANY more than 10 years at the 100-hour/year criteria. Xan had
about average (for a sailboat) usage for at least 10 years before us
according to the dockmaster. One year, dockmates thought our slip was
unrented as they didn't catch us in it until November. We've been doing
more than 60 days on the water, including 2-3 week trips each season that
take us 6-900 miles along the ICW; Lots of motoring there, of course. We
average more than 200 hours a year motor use, but it probably takes us 3-4
times longer to get "there" and I have no clue how many hours we spend
under sail. Tough to compare usage on hours alone, but I think we can call
it about even, though we're very high-usage for the Chesapeake.
We replaced our main in '97 after 25 seasons, the jib, genny and chute are
all original though they needed some stitching last Spring. The genny's
been recut a couple of times to take the "bag" out, a $100 job. If we were
racing, of course we'd have replaced sails, but we're talking cruising and
local coastal cruising at that. The newer cruising sails are better built
and should last longer without blowing out if properly stowed after each
sail.
BUT, I'll accept a 10 year replacement -- and a good set of spare sails --
for argument's sake.
> But for a sailboat, there there are heavy weather sails, light air sails
> (note the plural: "sails," not just one...but entire sets)...storm
> sails, spinnakers...
Sounds like you're looking at at least a club racer. Except for racing
boats, there's the standard set of 4 and many don't have the chute. REAL
recreational sailors use the main and genny alone, furling partway instead
of fussing with the jib. A serious long distance cruiser will add a set of
storm sails and carry their old sails for "just in case". I don't know a
local coastal cruiser with storm sails.
> The cost of sails alone is more than the average
> powerboat's 10 year average fuel cost. And there is ALWAYS something
> that requires repair or replacement...sails get torn, winches wear
> out...sheets and halyards chafe...winch handles and whisker poles go
> overboard
Things break and get lost on powerboats as well, so that's a wash in my
mind. We still have our original winches and only had to replace a single
winch handle ($35) in 5 seasons. A complete replacement of lines was about
$250 a couple of years ago -- vanity, as the old ones were still fine.
Using your own figures: $3k/year for 10 years is $30k. At a 20 year
recreational sail life, $60k. Will admit that your 32' boat is bigger than
ours, but not THAT much bigger. Haven't seen your boat, but Xan's pics are
below.
My boss has a 26' power cruiser (I/O) which definitely is smaller than us
in all ways. His consumption is more than half yours as far as I can tell,
but even using $15k over 10 years, we could get new sails, replace the
standing and running rigging, AND replace our engine. At 2000 hours use,
we'd have consumed maybe 500 gallons of fuel but probably wouldn't need the
engine since the current guesses for the newer small Yanmars in sailboats
indicate a 10,000 lifetime fairly easily achieved. [Especially since we
cruise at about 80% of max rpm or 65% of rated power.]
> ...and then there's the engine:
>
> On a sailboat, it's usually a diesel which rarely sees any use other
> than "cold start, short hop"--which is the worst thing you can do to a
> diesel engine...fuel consumption is so low that it sits in the tank and
> grows things that are constantly causing fuel related engine problems.
> Same problems with a generator.
Biobor and Racor take care of that. We DO try to run the engine at load at
least an hour each time we fire up, and mostly empty the tank at least once
a season, though it takes passing the fuel pump for a month or two ;-) [Our
15 gallon tank gives us 6 knots for 45-60 hours.]
> In '96 I bought a 16 (at the time) yr old 32' twin engine
> powerboat...gas engines, gas generator...in non-running and
> uninhabitable condition. I've spent about $15k to make her pristine
> again, but only about $3k of it was spent on the engines and
> genset...both of which have been happily purring like kittens for nearly
> 4 years now. Another member of my YC has 10 yr old Catalina 30...the
> same year I bought my bought, he spent nearly $10k for just a new main,
> 2 jibs, and 2 self-tailing winches...I could have completely repowered
> for less than that!
The winches were a good part of that cost and probably strictly vanity,
ease-of-use, or racing; the sails may still have been fine for coastal
cruising. [Depends on how well they were taken care of.] Properly
maintained winches seem to last forever. We replaced our main for under
$800 (North, not a cheap brand) and got a quote for $1100 for a high-end
genny last year. Jib would be less, probably on the order of $600 and a new
chute was running about $1500 a few years back. Grand total about $4k.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux -- '73 Tanzer 28 #4 -- out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's Pics & Specs: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI Vacation trip FAQ (250+ Annotated pics):
http://members.dca.net/jerelull/BVI.html
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
> > marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
> > sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
> > sailing then powering.
> >
> > Steve
>
Yes.
> length and determined that is the case, right? Is this the pattern for
Actually, I have talked to the owners of the ones around me. You have
to remember that my boat is fairly large and all of the powerboats on my
dock and the next dock over are also large. They take more fuel just to
warm up than I burn all day.
> every day of the week or is the pattern for weekends, too? Do the
I talk to the the owners of the large powerboats as well as to a guy who
is the marina "gossip hound" because he is there all the time and knows
just about everyone. He knows what boats get taken out frequently and
what ones stay at the docks most of the time. There is a sailboat that
never gets sailed, but it is part of a marital dispute and the only
reason it's at the marina is to siphon of money from one of the
participants. Other than that, the sailboats get sailed much more
frequently than the powerboats get powered for precisely the reason I
mentioned.
> powerboaters go out for shorter periods of time because they can do so
> and still have fun and get back to their slips? Do they leave after you
> do in the morning and get back before you do in the afternoon? Is there
No, they just don't go out all that often. I believe the smaller ones
on the other side of the marina get taken out more frequently, but
that's because they are much cheaper to operate than the behemoths
around me.
> anything strange or unusual in your immediate area that might restrict
> powerboaters?
Nothing at all.
> Seems to me that what is behind your posit is...a fantastic leap of
> faith.
Harry, Harry, Harry... Sour grapes because your "individual
responsibility" posit has withstood examination so poorly? I'm
surprised you are admitting defeat ever so slightly. This is the
kinder, gentler Harry.
hkr...@capuantispammer.net
>
>
>
> Harry, Harry, Harry... Sour grapes because your "individual
> responsibility" posit has withstood examination so poorly? I'm
> surprised you are admitting defeat ever so slightly. This is the
> kinder, gentler Harry.
>
> Steve
>
Out of Deale, where I boat, there are literally hundreds of beautiful
30-60' sailboats. Most of them are rarely used, other than as a dockside
party platform. Most of the powerboats are used regularly from what I
see.
What do you make of that?
--
Harry Krause
------------
Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy.
Steven Shelikoff
>
>
> > Let's take your 30'-35' boat comparison.
> > Engines: the sailboat engine will cost many times less to maintain and
> > operate than the powerboat's engine[s].
>
> boats, showing every dime over 10 years, you can only be making an
> assumption.
I'm comparing what it costs to operate my engine over the past 20 years
(I have all the records, the previous owner was a submariner and Navy
diver and the owners prior to him were just as meticulous) to the
"stories" I hear at the docks where I'm surrounded by similar sized
powerboats. The most expensive thing that has been done to my Perkins
4-108 was the installation of a new heat exchanger for a few hundred
dollars. It only requires 4 quarts of oil per change. It only uses
about .8 GPH. It requires very minimal normal maintenance. Change the
fuel filters and clean the air filter regularly, change the pencil zincs
each year, change the oil and oil filter at the end of each season, and
that's about it. None of the complexities of a gas engine. It has been
going strong for 20 years, it still runs great, and judging from the
number of hours I put on it, it will still be going strong 20 years from
now.
> > Sails: You're talking about a well equipped cruising
> > sailboat.
>
> Yep...vs. the same size well equipped power cruiser.
Then you're not being fair. The type of sail inventory you're talking
about is for a racing circumnav. A power cruiser would have to carry
enough spare parts so he could completely rebuild an engine at a remote
location for the comparison to be fair.
> > Fuel problems: A sailboat wouldn't have any more or
> > less fuel problems than a powerboat that has the same amount if usage.
>
> There, you're almost right...if sailboats ran their engines as many
> hours a year as powerboats, they'd have fewer engine problems...'cuz
> lack of use is harder on engines than constant use. But gas engines can
> take more abuse--and to a diesel engine, constant cold start-short hop,
> use and no other IS abuse--AND neglect...and thereforeshouldn't cost any
> more to maintain than the family car engine (ONLY the engine).
You reall don't believe that the 350 in the family wagon is as expensive
to maintain and operate as the 350 on a powerboat, do you? I guess you
haven't priced "marine" grade parts to what you can find in the local
NAPA. As for my diesel engine, I don't do cold start-short hop. I
always let it warm up to temp and get a workout even if I only really
need it just for marina negotiation. That's why I burned 28 gals last
year when I could probably have gotten away with only burning 2 or 3.
> > Most powerboats sit at the dock all the time because they are so
> > expensive to run.
>
> Another assumption. How many people have you asked whether their boats
> sit at the dock because they can't afford to take them out? Actually,
> fuel costs rarely have anything to do with it. Those that sit, do so
> because their owners don't really have the time for the boat they
> thought they would...typical use is 100+ hrs the first year, maybe 75
> the second...and 25-50 the third and beyond. And every powerboat you
> can point to that never leaves the dock, I can point to a sailboat that
> never does....but you're only presenting anecdotal evidence, whereas
> mine comes from industry surveys etc.
See my response to Harry.
> >In that case, you have the same stagnant fuel
> > problem, but multiplied because the tanks are so much bigger.
>
> Gas doesn't grow "bugs" as diesel does, so the same problems do not
> exist on gas powered boats. Our biggest problem is moisture condensation
> in the tank...nothng compared to the fuel related problems caused by old
> diesel.
By using a growth preventer, I've never had a fuel problem with my
diesel. Gas has just as many, if not more, problems with storage and
inactivity as diesel. It breakes down after a short time and is
unusable within a year if you don't put something like stabil in. It
dries out turns to gum and varnish.
> > And your
> > friend with the Cat 30, unless he's going racing, he got ripped off.
> > Racing changes the rules for both sail and power boats.
>
> He does race...but only in club races. And unless you know specifically
> what he bought--what makes, sizes, etc.--I doubt you can say
> definitively that he "got ripped off." He may have bought higher
> quality than he needed...higher quality than you would have...but
> neither you nor I know what he bought, I only know what he spent.
By judging from what he spent, if he *didn't* by sails that are of
suitable quality for racing I can safely surmise that he got ripped
off. Since you tell me that he did buy high quality sails, suitable for
racing, then he might not have gotten ripped off. But now you have to
compare the cost of his sails with the cost of a set of racing engines
for a 30' race boat, not your lake cruiser.
> > All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
> > marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
> > sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
> > sailing then powering.
>
> Not necessarily. Yes it's cheaper to spend an entire day underway on a
> sailboat than it is on a powerboat...but it costs very little to go out
> to an anchorage...so fuel costs are not a reason to stay in the slip.
>
> All you're offering are assumptions, Steve...nothing else. And what it
> costs--or doesn't cost--you to own and maintain your own boat may or may
> not have anything to do with whether you skimp, overspend, or just
> maintain to specs. I don't care...all I know is what industry surveys
> indicate. I can see this leading to another endless circular
> debate...which I have no time for...so I leave it here.
All I'm offering is the collective experiences of the 30 or 40 similar
sized boats at my dock and the adjacent dock. Sometimes real life is
more accurate than real research.
hkr...@capuantispammer.net
No more than I do, I hope.
Paul Kruse
did so better than I could have. As she pointed out, we must be sure
to compare boats that are similar; and when you do, the power boat
will always be faster and cheaper within the context of this thread:
David was talking about Passage Making, which means crossing oceans
and such.
This is where Peggie sort of digressed. She compared boats that the
average boat owner might buy, which is a far cry from the powered
voyager that David was talking about. Had she confined her comments
to passage makers and trawlers, she would have blown the sailors out
of the water cost-wise. As it is, even talking about more common
boats, she did that pretty well.
Two boats that I know of prove David's point rather well concerning
the cost of voyaging in boats. One is a 47 foot Morgan sailboat that
a friend of mine owns, and the other is a 48 foot trimaran that my son
is currently building.
The Morgan was completely destroyed in a hurricane, such that the
mast, rigging, sails, and wenches were all missing when my friend
bought it. None-the-less, he did an excellent job of putting this
beautiful boat back into service and is now using is for full time
cruising. He put a pilot house onto it and built it back up as a
power-only trawler/passagemaker.
He did repower, but with a nearly identical engine as the original.
All his engine costs are therefore exactly the same as if he had
rebuilt it as a sailboat. As for the cost of replacing the sails and
all the associated rigging; well just figure that he could have bought
enough diesel fuel for three complete circumnavigations for that much
money. As a power-only boat, he has sufficient range to cross any
ocean.
My son's trimaran provides a similar example with similar numbers for
installing the sail and rigging. The only difference is that he is
building it as a power-only boat from scratch. I'm seriously
considering putting exactly the same engine into the trimaran as my
friend installed into his Morgan. As for range, figure about 5000
nautical miles between fill ups; and figure that a 30,000 mile world
circumnavigation would burn about 3600-4000 dollars of diesel fuel --
much less if he wants to cross oceans as slowly as the typical
sailboat.
I'm really amazed that folks in this group seem to think that an
engine will only last up to about 2000-3500 hours. That experience
can only come from sailboats, which as Peggie pointed out is about the
worst way to abuse an engine. It should not be difficult at all to
get 40,000 to 50,000 hours out of an engine in a powered voyager. I
know a commercial fisherman with the same engine as was installed into
that Morgan. He is at 45,000 hours and a recent tear down/inspection
showed that the engine is still essentially new. Only the gaskets and
seals were replaced when that engine went back together with 45,000
hours on it. Try to get that many hours out of sails and rigging,
without having to replace them many times.
Boatless, but building M/V Doulos I and Doulos II
http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
Paul Kruse
plk...@iu.net
Port Canaveral, FL, USA
non...@noname.com
Less than I do.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > Harry, Harry, Harry... Sour grapes because your "individual
> > responsibility" posit has withstood examination so poorly? I'm
> > surprised you are admitting defeat ever so slightly. This is the
> > kinder, gentler Harry.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> Not at all. I'm just not as anal about my posts as you are.
Nice one. I guess I'll let it die and I won't bother to quote all the
times where you *are* anal about your carefully crafted, Clintonesque,
posts.
> Out of Deale, where I boat, there are literally hundreds of beautiful
> 30-60' sailboats. Most of them are rarely used, other than as a dockside
> party platform. Most of the powerboats are used regularly from what I
> see.
>
> What do you make of that?
Without knowing why these huge sailboats aren't used more regularly, I
don't make very much of it. Possibly it's because with a sailboat that
large, you have to find crew to help you sail it and crew is not readily
available when you want to go sailing. When I was looking for a boat, I
specifically wanted one I can singlehand. Even though my boat is 37',
the rig is such that it makes singlehanding easy for me and I spend
maybe 80% of my time on the water alone with my dogs.
David Smalley
Sometimes real life is
> more accurate than real research.
Well Steve, that is the least accurate statement I have seen you post.
--
DAVe
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> Sometimes real life is
> > more accurate than real research.
>
Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
David Smalley
>
> Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
> be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
> to the costs and complication.
There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one diesel
engine.
--
DAVe
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > > more accurate than real research.
> >
>
> Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
--
DAVe
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > more accurate than real research.
> > >
> >
> > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
>
> IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
>
> Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > more accurate than real research.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
> >
> > IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
> >
> > Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
>
> Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
See! Right there you are using a classic Harry trick! 8^)
--
DAVe
Evan Gatehouse & Diane Selkirk
David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
do repairs as they go...
--
Evan Gatehouse
s/v Ceilydh
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
>
> > jean somerhausen wrote:
> > >
> > > Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
> > > be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
> > > to the costs and complication.
> >
> > There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one diesel
> > engine.
> Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
> do repairs as they go...
Not all of them. IMO only the biggest and best.
--
DAVe
hkr...@capuantispam.net
> fishing boat under tow. Four bolts on the inverter had broken...
> john
Most commercial fishing boats 100' and under and perhaps even larger
only have a single diesel engine. Many Maine lobsterfishermen have
single diesel powered boats in the 25-40' range and certainly don't have
engineers or machine shops aboard, and they go out in weather conditions
that would frighten most pleasure boaters. These men are not foolish. If
they thought they needed a boat with twin diesels, that is what they
would have.
--
Harry Krause
------------
FLASH! "What the heck was that?" - Mayor of Hiroshima
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Evan Gatehouse & Diane Selkirk wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > > jean somerhausen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
> > > > > be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
> > > > > to the costs and complication.
> > > >
> > > > There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one diesel
> > > > engine.
> >
> > > Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
> > > do repairs as they go...
> >
> > Not all of them. IMO only the biggest and best.
> >
> > --
> > DAVe
> Exactly, last year, when I was in Little Creek, the CG brought in a
> fishing boat under tow. Four bolts on the inverter had broken...
Huh? What does the inverter have to do w/ the motor?
--
DAVe
John Abercrombie
>Joe, I agree with David.
>
>You're thinking only of point-to-point costs--and when it comes to
>passagemaking, you're right. But you're starting from a premise that's
>both accurate--no $50k powerboat could trans-Atlantic, while an even
>less expensive sailboat can--and inaccurate 'cuz you're comparing apples
>and kumquats...the cost of owning a dog vs. a owning racehorse. To have
>a fair comparison, you have to compare the total cost of owning,
>maintaining and operating comparable sized boats. And, on average, it
>costs 20% MORE--including fuel costs--to own, maintain, and operate a
>sailboat than *a comparable size powerboat.*
>>
But, Peggie- you seem to be ignoring the financial consequences of a
couple of important points that Joe made:
1) The sailboat will be much cheaper to buy (Remember the "cost of
money" argument)
2) An ocean-capable powerboat will need to have top-notch diesel
propulsion, (and probably a larger minimum size than a sailboat) not
gas as in your example.
However, I do agree with the gist of your comments: "The wind may be
free, but harnessing it isn't!"
John
Joe Della Barba
<peg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A friend of mine bought a 30'
>> powerboat brand new with twin V8s and she got little use after he
>> discovered how much fuel she could go through. It was about 15 GPH per
>> engine, or about 1 NMPG. And then after about 3 years and a couple
>> hundred hours use the boat needed the engines rebuilt.
>
>That's only bit of anecdotal evidence, hardly the norm. Your friend
>obviously could not afford his boat, 'cuz no engines that are maintained
>should need rebuilding after only a couple hundred hours...and sitting
>is harder on engines than abusing them. The flip side of that coin is,
>my engines are now 20 years old, have over 1100 hrs on 'em, and are
>showing NO signs needing a rebuild. AND--you're still only comparing
>fuel costs, not the total cost of owning and maintaining.
>
Well, the boat should have been used more, but he couldn't afford the
gas. Actually now I think back on it, it was one of the two engines
that blew a head gasket. See www.yachtsurvey.com for a good article on
wy some gas engines have a VERY short lifespan.
>> At planing speeds you
>> are going through almost a DOLLAR a minute.
>
>Not quite...do the math: a 454 burns about 24 gals hr at 3000
>rpm...that's about .4/gpm. Around here, we pay only about $1.30/gal at
>the fuel dock...but our gas prices have always been low, so I used
>$1.75/gal. $1.75 x .4 = $.70/minute. But for how long? On one hand,
>everyone knows that powerboaters are destination oriented...we go till
>we get there, then put down the hook or tie up to another boat or a
>dock...and then 4-36 hours later, we go home again. Sailors, OTOH, spend
>entire days/weeks underway.
Well, if you have 2 454s then that looks like about 1NMPG to me.
>> I rent airplanes for less
>> than that, including gas, and they go much faster.
>
>You also go much farther than the average powerboater goes too.
>
>> I met a guy who had
>> his 35' Chris Craft trucked to Florida every year because the truck
>> fee was less than the gas.
>
>Again...you're trying to compare ONLY sail vs. power passagemaking
>costs--the cost of fuel to get there vs. sailing there.
>
>> Besides for the fuel cost, most powerboats seem to be very poorly put
>> together and end up needing major work after awhile.
>
>No more so than most production sailboats.
Sailboats can only be so bad before they fall apart in a good sailing
breeze (Insert joke about your least favorite sailboat brand here). I
discovered there was no such bottom level to powerboats, since some
are marketed to non boaters who have no clue what they are looking at
and may never take them out of the dock in any weather. Of course
buying a junk boat of any type will be hard on the maintenance budget.
>
>> As far as sails and winches, my nice stainless Barients work as well
>> as they did new in 1973.
>
>Uh-huh...and some people believe the same is true of an equally old
>toilet. :-) You've never had to replace ANY parts, spend ANY money on
>'em???
Well, I did have to buy a tube of winch greae once or twice. And a new
spring once. Total cost since 1977 of about $15.00 or so. I do hope
nothing ever happens to them, since those heavy stainless winches look
and work great. My head, OTOH, did need rebuilding twice since 1977.
>> IMHO the only reason to get ANY kind of boat is because you want to,
>> not because you think it is cheaper than another. If you LIKE planing
>> powerboats then you get one and deal with the fuel cost.
>> We all get old and by trawlers sooner or later anyway :)
>
>Again...there you go with the fuel costs, as if that's where ALL the
>cost is. It's not. But if you want to compare costs using only fuel as a
>measurement, fine...but it's not an accurate comparison. But I can't
>figure out why it's so important to you to believe that it costs less to
>own a sailboat than it does to own a powerboat...'cuz that's not why you
>own a sailboat, nor why I own a powerboat. We own what makes us both
>happy...and if cost were the driving factor, neither of us would prob'ly
>own a boat! :-)
>
>Peggie
Well, I took the statement that a power voyager was cheaper than a
sailboat, thought about it, though back on all my delivery trips of
different types of boats, and I just couldn't see how - and I still
don't!
As far as fuel costs, one of my dislikes about flying is since you are
usually spendig between $1 and $3 a minute, it is hard to just relax.
You are always concious of the money meter and trying to do the trip
in the most efficient fashion. To me powerboats are the same way. I am
going on a 12 day trip this summer. We might not go much of anywhere
or we might go around the DelMarVa (about 450 miles). The descision
really comes down to the weather and our laziness. Money doesn't enter
into it. If we had a 35' powerboat we would be looking at $600-$900 of
gas to do the trip. Maybe I am just cheap, but that is a chunk of
change to me.
As far as engines go, my engine lasted 20 years (not ten as was posted
earlier - temporary brain malfunction) and every sailboat in my yacht
club with a diesel is on the original engine. Rumours aside, sailboat
diesels don't routinely die after a few years unless flooded - and we
have discovered Biobore to keep out those evil bugs. My gas engine is
in the shop right now for a new head gasket and valve job. Total cost
$250 and the engine can be lifted by two people and put in a pickup
truck.
I am also enjoying this thread much more than some of the flame-fests
that go on here. No one has called anyone a Nazi yet and that guy with
the weird racial theories isn't here and no one has debated politics
or Cuban cruising.
Joe
jean somerhausen
be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
definition. The costs of diesel fuel in most European countries are
about three times as much as in the US (in some, like Belgium and
Britain, pleasure boats are allowed to take on heating diesel which is
about the same price as US disel), so that comes into the equation of
price also.
john
Ian Wright
<peg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I think you missed the point. It's about what's appropriate for your
>circumstances,
Not that I mind powerboats Peggie, I've been on enough of 'em, but
even if they ARE cheaper to run or more efficient or whatever, I
prefer sailing, motor boats to me mean work, sailing is
play,,,,,,,,,,,
I'm not going to have to change when you win the argument, am I?
Please?
Ian Wright, Patience, Vertue 203
jean somerhausen
>
> Evan Gatehouse & Diane Selkirk wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > jean somerhausen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
> > > > to the costs and complication.
> > >
> > > engine.
>
> > Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
> > do repairs as they go...
>
> Not all of them. IMO only the biggest and best.
>
> --
> DAVe
Exactly, last year, when I was in Little Creek, the CG brought in a
fishing boat under tow. Four bolts on the inverter had broken...
Marcus G Bell
> Exactly, last year, when I was in Little Creek, the CG brought
> in a fishing boat under tow. Four bolts on the inverter had
> broken...
Meaning they couldn't watch TV or run the fridge? Sounds like a
towable emergency to me ;-)
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
John Abercrombie
>I was going to jump all over that one, but Peggie beat me to it, and
>did so better than I could have. As she pointed out, we must be sure
>to compare boats that are similar; and when you do, the power boat
>will always be faster and cheaper within the context of this thread:
>David was talking about Passage Making, which means crossing oceans
>and such.
>
>This is where Peggie sort of digressed. She compared boats that the
>average boat owner might buy, which is a far cry from the powered
>voyager that David was talking about. Had she confined her comments
>to passage makers and trawlers, she would have blown the sailors out
>of the water cost-wise. As it is, even talking about more common
>boats, she did that pretty well.
>
Hi, Paul- We've been here before, but...
Set the parameters and you control the outcome of the argument.
How about: Go out and buy (and equip) a boat to do an ocean passage,
say New York to England or California to New Zealand. Since we are
counting the total cost, you may want to consider a used boat. The
boat need not be luxurious, but it must be seaworthy enough to put our
venture into the non-daredevil category- i.e. no MacGregor 26's or
Sopranino type sailboats.
Here is where the problem arises for the power boat fan. Look on the
used boat market for such boats and you will find few at "low cost"
that can do the job. In a few years, this may all change if a whole
bunch of these boats are made. Now, you are looking at a pretty pricey
group of boats- Nordhavn, etc.
On the other hand there are lots of sailboats that can "do the job"
and are available at reasonable cost (used).
Even if you accept the argument that a well-found and well-sailed
sailboat will have fuel/maintenance/repair/gear replacement costs
equal to the fuel/maintenance/repair/gear replacement costs of a
powered passagemaker (which I certainly do not- in Canada diesel is
about $0.50/L Cdn)), the initial cost of the powered passagemaker
makes it the clear loser in the "economy" race.
Of course if only a new Hinkley or a Swan will make you happy under
sail, then the advantage disappears!
John
Joe Della Barba
>I was going to jump all over that one, but Peggie beat me to it, and
>did so better than I could have. As she pointed out, we must be sure
>to compare boats that are similar; and when you do, the power boat
>will always be faster and cheaper within the context of this thread:
>David was talking about Passage Making, which means crossing oceans
>and such.
>
>This is where Peggie sort of digressed. She compared boats that the
>average boat owner might buy, which is a far cry from the powered
>voyager that David was talking about. Had she confined her comments
>to passage makers and trawlers, she would have blown the sailors out
>of the water cost-wise. As it is, even talking about more common
>boats, she did that pretty well.
>
Well, I think we found the cheapest way to go at last. Buy a sailboat
and sell the rig and sails. You now have a boat that is seaworthy
enough to cross oceans and gets around 4 to 6 NMPG. No sail repairs
and a relatively small engine to feed. You might get enough from the
rig and sails for your first couple thousand miles of fuel, or at
least it would pay for the extra fuel tanks you might want. OR you
could save yourself the trouble and buy a Gulfstar motorboat, which is
a sailboat hull with a pilothouse.
This has been fun for a cold day!
Joe
Ian Wright
wrote:
>
>There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one diesel
>engine.
,,,,,,,,and when it stop they are in the brown and stinkey,,,,,,,,,,
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > more accurate than real research.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
> > >
> > > IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
> > >
> > > Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
> >
> > Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
>
> See! Right there you are using a classic Harry trick! 8^)
I have no need to use any Harry tricks since you agree with me that real
life observations are sometimes better then the type of research that
Peggie cited.
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > more accurate than real research.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
> > > >
> > > > IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
> > >
> > > Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
> >
> > See! Right there you are using a classic Harry trick! 8^)
>
> I have no need to use any Harry tricks since you agree with me that real
> life observations are sometimes better then the type of research that
> Peggie cited.
Hell of a jump there guy. I disagree w/ your extrapolation of your
observations as I feel your sample was way to small.
--
DAVe
Phoenix
If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
If you are talking about making a passage or any long distance sailing I
think you will find that the sailboat is much less expensive. The $10,000
for sails had to have been for racing sails not cruising sails. Dacron is
much less expensive and has a much longer life.
--
Jim
"Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." <peg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:389C59DD...@bellsouth.net...
> Joe, I agree with David.
>
> You're thinking only of point-to-point costs--and when it comes to
> passagemaking, you're right. But you're starting from a premise that's
> both accurate--no $50k powerboat could trans-Atlantic, while an even
> less expensive sailboat can--and inaccurate 'cuz you're comparing apples
> and kumquats...the cost of owning a dog vs. a owning racehorse. To have
> a fair comparison, you have to compare the total cost of owning,
> maintaining and operating comparable sized boats. And, on average, it
> costs 20% MORE--including fuel costs--to own, maintain, and operate a
> sailboat than *a comparable size powerboat.*
>
> For the sake of argument, let's assume both boats are 30-35'...that
> means twin engines for the powerboat...cabin with systems for both.
> Smaller single engine boats will obviously cost less.
>
> Except for those items relating to the primary means of propulsion, the
> machinery and equipment on powerboats and sailboats is fairly
> comparable... Both have hulls and bottoms, hatches and portlights,
> cleats and rails stanchions etc...both have sanitation and plumbing
> systems...both have electronics...electrical--AC and 12v--systems...and
> at least one engine...about an equal number of both have generators and
> electric anchor windlasses. So the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and
> repairing everything BUT the equipment related to the boat's primary
> propulsion system is about the same for power or sail.
>
> But then there's the propulsion system. The vast majority of powerboats
> have gas engines...you don't see many diesels under 40' (except on
> trawlers, and a comparison of the average cost of owning a sailboat vs a
> same size trawler would bury you!)...and about all a powerboater has to
> do to run a gas engine without needing any repairs for years is change
> the oil every 50 hours and the engine intake water impeller every
> spring. On average--and that's what we're talking about there--a
> powerboat will see less than 100 hrs of actual engine running time a
> year. So assuming a max average for a twin engine boat of 20 gals/hr at
> a $1.75/gal...annual propulsion maintenance and operation
> costs--including fuel--are under $3k a year for at least the first 10
> years of a powerboat's life.
>
> But for a sailboat, there there are heavy weather sails, light air sails
> (note the plural: "sails," not just one...but entire sets)...storm
> sails, spinnakers... The cost of sails alone is more than the average
> powerboat's 10 year average fuel cost. And there is ALWAYS something
> that requires repair or replacement...sails get torn, winches wear
> out...sheets and halyards chafe...winch handles and whisker poles go
> overboard...and then there's the engine:
>
> On a sailboat, it's usually a diesel which rarely sees any use other
> than "cold start, short hop"--which is the worst thing you can do to a
> diesel engine...fuel consumption is so low that it sits in the tank and
> grows things that are constantly causing fuel related engine problems.
> Same problems with a generator.
>
> In '96 I bought a 16 (at the time) yr old 32' twin engine
> powerboat...gas engines, gas generator...in non-running and
> uninhabitable condition. I've spent about $15k to make her pristine
> again, but only about $3k of it was spent on the engines and
> genset...both of which have been happily purring like kittens for nearly
> 4 years now. Another member of my YC has 10 yr old Catalina 30...the
> same year I bought my bought, he spent nearly $10k for just a new main,
> 2 jibs, and 2 self-tailing winches...I could have completely repowered
> for less than that!
>
> Yes...there are sailboat owners out there who believe that spending
> anything more than the price of a roll of duct tape and and tube of 5200
> to keep a sailboat running is unnecessary and that the price of cotter
> pins is outrageous...their hulls don't shine, their sails are blown
> out...their engines smoke...you know the type--and there are just as
> many powerboats held together with spit and bailing wire. But ON AVERAGE
> it's gonna cost the owner of a sailboat 20% more--INCLUDING FUEL--to
> maintain a sailboat to specs than it costs the owner of the same size
> powerboat.
>
> Came as a surprise to me too...
>
> Peggie
>
>
>
>
> Joe Della Barba wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > SNIP
> > I now believe that a properly equiped passagemeker gets from point to
> > point cheaper and faster than a sailboat, _especially_ when you
> > average
> > it out over years. Sails and rigging are _expensive_.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > I would have to question that.
> > First off, $50,000 will buyt a boat that will sail transatlantic no
> > problem. If you don't care too much about getting a big boat, $50,000
> > will pay for the boat, gear, and the whole trip.
> > I can't imagine that any $50,000 powerboat could do a transatlantic
> > trip safely.
> >
> > Direct operating costs:
> > Let us say you sail around the world in a 40 foot sailboat. You sail
> > 30,000 miles and wear out your sails. You are looking at $10,000 -
> > $15,000 for a decent set of new sails (and it could be done for much
> > less). Assume you did not manage to dismast the boat. Say $0.50 per
> > mile for sails.
> > Let us say you also motor for 3,000 of those 30,000 miles and use 500
> > gallons of fuel and 500 hours on the engine. This is a pretty small
> > amount of money for fuel and 500 hours is not too significant.
> >
> > Let us say you have some kind of powerboat with twin Ford Lehman 120s
> > and do the same trip.
> > Rough guess is 30,000 miles at 7 knots is 4,286 engine hours. Another
> > rough gues of 3 GPH combined (this may be low??) gives you 12,858
> > gallons of fuel. Depending on the price of fuel, this comes out pretty
> > close to the per mile cost of the sailboat. BUT after 4,286 hours
> > those engines just might need an overhaul. This would drive the price
> > way over the sailboat, never mind that the sailboat likely cost MUCH
> > less to start with.
> >
> > Not to say the power trip wouldn't be fun, but I doubt it would be
> > cheaper.
> >
> > Joe N3HGB
Phoenix
rec.boats.cruising not rec.boats we are much more civil in this group than
rec.boats.
--
Jim
"Steven Shelikoff" <shel...@averstar.com> wrote in message
news:389CD691...@averstar.com...
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes real life is
> > > > > more accurate than real research.
> > > >
> > > > Well Steve, that is the least accurate statement I have seen you
post.
> > >
> > > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you
up?
> >
> > IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
> >
> > Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
>
> Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
>
T Spragg
which, if carefully managed, is covered by insurance, along with the
equally 'worn' sails. ;^)
Try to collect when you wear out a diesel.
Aahhrrg! Where's that jolly roger?
Terry k
Joe Della Barba wrote:
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> SNIP
> I now believe that a properly equiped passagemeker gets from point to
> point cheaper and faster than a sailboat, _especially_ when you
> average
> it out over years. Sails and rigging are _expensive_.
>
> SNIP
--
Spamchok - Stop Spam!
Stop spam with Spamchok - it's free, ask!
be...@alkekvxqyh.org c...@bmsmhgjflc.net b...@ibxbsfx.net
xhpue...@gnbmvmfkf.com soi...@vlwqyffwaek.com gmdc...@ikjgaawxgp.com
h...@eg.edu fm...@xtq.org nblbq...@ytgtcia.com kfttp...@qfqownd.net
ijsxl...@pcriehnt.com Terry K
T Spragg
oriented'. My destination is 'on the boat' As far as being on the boat
is concerned, being underway under sail is cheaper. If you discount the
fact that we mostly all wind up back where we started from, sailing is
cheaper.
Passagemaking is a different story, of course, and if you dispense with
the amenities that are not neccessary, engines cost more than sails,
especially 'cos a worn out sail will still go, while a worn out engine
won't. Mind you, 'worn out' means different things to different people.
Further, I don't think food costs enter into it, 'cos you gotta eat,
even if you stay home.
Depends on what you count as an 'adequate' enjoyment of the sport. Some
must race to win, some enjoy dawdling along, with the birds and waves.
Terry K
hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > All I have to do is look at the typical usage of the boats in my
> > marina. The powerboats spend most of their time in the slip. The
> > sailboats get sailed. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to spend a day
> > sailing then powering.
> >
> > Steve
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
Ye gods!
> real
> life observations are sometimes better then the type of research that
> Peggie cited.
Real life observations tend to include only one's backyard...and be
related only to one's own experience. The "average" boat owner is not a
passagemaker or even a serious coastal cruiser. Statistically--power AND
sail--he owns a "floating condo" on an inland lake or river that he uses
only on weekends. And he's more concerned with how much juice is needed
to power his tv/vcr than he is with what it's gonna cost, or even how to
become more than marginally competent at handling his boat.
Jim wrote...
> If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
> correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
I'm not talking about cruising at all! Only about the total cost of
owning, maintaining & operating comparable sized boats, amortized over
10 years.
From John...
> Set the parameters and you control the outcome of the argument.
I did...but no one--including you--will stay within them!
> How about: Go out and buy (and equip) a boat to do an ocean passage,
If you want to argue another issue using your parameters, fine...but the
parameters for THIS argument are: comparable sized, typically equipped,
typical owner, typical use, typical location.
In fact, of the 10 million or so registered boats in the US (which
include federally documented vessels), passagemakers are such a small
percentage, they aren't even statistically noticeable--even if you add
in those who avoid taxes etc by having an offshore "legal residence."
They are not the typical boat owner...nor are liveaboards. One more
time: The "average" boat owner is not a passagemaker or even a serious
coastal cruiser. Statistically--power AND sail--he owns a "floating
condo" on an inland lake or river that he uses only on weekends. And
he's more concerned with how much juice is needed to power his tv/vcr,
and a "wow! you mean I only have to push the button to flush it???"
toilet than he is with what it's gonna cost, or even how to become more
than marginally competent at handling his boat.
Setting the parameters may be the way to control the outcome of an
argument...but trying to keep y'all within the parameters is like trying
to herd cats! :-)
And Joe--who started it all, said:
> This has been fun for a cold day!
And if my time stamps are any indication, well into the night!:-)
Have fun with it today (I can already see Steve starting to type)...I'm
off to the lake see how my boat weathered the freezing conditions.
Peggie
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > more accurate than real research.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well Steve, that is the least accurate statement I have seen you post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that your real life assesment or do you have research to back you up?
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO careful observation of real life _is_ research.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or are you playing Harry semantics? 8^)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it seems that you are the one playing Harry semantics.:)
> > >
> >
> > life observations are sometimes better then the type of research that
> > Peggie cited.
>
> observations as I feel your sample was way to small.
My "real life" sample size was around 40 boats, and I made no pretenses
that my conclusions were based on anything other than that sample size.
For that sample, the overwhelming result is that the sailboats sail much
more frequently than the power boats power with the overriding reason
being the cost of powering a 35'-45' powerboat.
Do you now disagree with your own statement that "careful observation of
real life _is_ research" or did you really mean to say that "careful
observation of real life _is_ research only if David Smalley is the one
doing the observation." You seem to be going in circles with yourself.
Why don't you say what you really mean?
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Peggie,
>
> If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
> correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
I think you'll find that even for coastal cruising or short hops, a
sailboat is still cheaper to make the same trip. Once you start getting
to short hop sailboats, you can eliminate the motor or at least use only
a small, cheap outboard of less then 10hp as a backup to the very
inexpensive sails that a smaller sailboat requires.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> I can't believe you're STILL at it!!
Well, you started it!:)
> > real
> > life observations are sometimes better then the type of research that
> > Peggie cited.
>
> Real life observations tend to include only one's backyard...and be
> related only to one's own experience. The "average" boat owner is not a
> passagemaker or even a serious coastal cruiser. Statistically--power AND
> sail--he owns a "floating condo" on an inland lake or river that he uses
> only on weekends. And he's more concerned with how much juice is needed
> to power his tv/vcr than he is with what it's gonna cost, or even how to
> become more than marginally competent at handling his boat.
Statistics can be used to prove anything. One thing those statistics
don't include is the vast number of unlicensed sailboats because they
are smaller then a minimum size requirement and don't have an engine.
> Jim wrote...
>
> > If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
> > correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
>
> I'm not talking about cruising at all! Only about the total cost of
> owning, maintaining & operating comparable sized boats, amortized over
> 10 years.
Well, jeeze, if you don't ever go anywhere, I'll agree that both boats
cost the same to own. It's only when you actually go boating away from
the dock that the powerboat is more expensive.
> From John...
>
> > Set the parameters and you control the outcome of the argument.
>
> I did...but no one--including you--will stay within them!
First you have to set fair parameters. Then we'll stay within them.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
> My "real life" sample size was around 40 boats, and I made no pretenses
> that my conclusions were based on anything other than that sample size.
> For that sample, the overwhelming result is that the sailboats sail much
> more frequently than the power boats power with the overriding reason
> being the cost of powering a 35'-45' powerboat.
>
> Do you now disagree with your own statement that "careful observation of
> real life _is_ research" or did you really mean to say that "careful
> observation of real life _is_ research only if David Smalley is the one
> doing the observation." You seem to be going in circles with yourself.
> Why don't you say what you really mean?
>
> Steve
>
Why don't you stop worrying about the finite-ness of your hairsplitting,
Steve?
I don't think any of it passes the WGAS test.
Your data is only as valid as your little sample in your little marina
based upon the bias of your questionnaire and your bias in interpreting
it. You cannot extrapolate it farther than that. I'm sure someone else
could visit your marina, ask questions and come away with different
results.
It's not that important. None of it is. Really.
--
Harry Krause
------------
QUIT is a four letter word!
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> Phoenix wrote:
> >
> > Peggie,
> >
> > If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
> > correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
>
> sailboat is still cheaper to make the same trip. Once you start getting
> to short hop sailboats, you can eliminate the motor or at least use only
> a small, cheap outboard of less then 10hp as a backup to the very
> inexpensive sails that a smaller sailboat requires.
>
> Steve
If saving bucks on fuel were so important, the sales figures for new
sailboats wouldn't have been in the crapper for the last decade. There
are very few manufacturers of cruising sailboats left, compared to a
decade or so ago. Powerboat sales are booming. Sailing is lots of fun if
you have the time for it, but I don't believe "saving bucks cruising" is
a great motivator, unless you have infinite time.
--
Harry Krause
------------
I don't have a life, I have a BBS...
jean somerhausen
myself clear to nautically-challenged-computer-endowed individuals"
john
David Smalley wrote:
>
> jean somerhausen wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Evan Gatehouse & Diane Selkirk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > > jean somerhausen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
> > > > > > be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine, and that will add
> > > > > > to the costs and complication.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one diesel
> > > > > engine.
> > >
> > > > Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
> > > > do repairs as they go...
> > >
> > > Not all of them. IMO only the biggest and best.
> > >
> > > --
> > > DAVe
> > Exactly, last year, when I was in Little Creek, the CG brought in a
> > fishing boat under tow. Four bolts on the inverter had broken...
>
jean somerhausen
Larry KN4IM (hope I got his callsign right...) mentioned it sometimes
ago
it's a 20 ft with a 3000 miles range according to the designer/builder/
owner that was described in the fall 99 issue of passagemaker. But as I
called it, it's a "backpacker boat", doesn't even seem to have a head...
john
John Abercrombie wrote:
>
> plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse) wrote:
>
> >I was going to jump all over that one, but Peggie beat me to it, and
> >did so better than I could have. As she pointed out, we must be sure
> >to compare boats that are similar; and when you do, the power boat
> >will always be faster and cheaper within the context of this thread:
> >David was talking about Passage Making, which means crossing oceans
> >and such.
> >
> >This is where Peggie sort of digressed. She compared boats that the
> >average boat owner might buy, which is a far cry from the powered
> >voyager that David was talking about. Had she confined her comments
> >to passage makers and trawlers, she would have blown the sailors out
> >of the water cost-wise. As it is, even talking about more common
> >boats, she did that pretty well.
> >
> Hi, Paul- We've been here before, but...
>
> Set the parameters and you control the outcome of the argument.
> How about: Go out and buy (and equip) a boat to do an ocean passage,
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> "Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." wrote:
> >
> > I can't believe you're STILL at it!!
>
> Well, you started it!:)
No I didn't...I just made an observation.
> Statistics can be used to prove anything. One thing those statistics
> don't include is the vast number of unlicensed sailboats because they
> are smaller then a minimum size requirement and don't have an engine.
Please explain to me how that can affect the comparison of the average
cost of owning a 30-35' sailboat vs owning a 30-35' powerboat.
> Well, jeeze, if you don't ever go anywhere, I'll agree that both boats
> cost the same to own. It's only when you actually go boating away from
> the dock that the powerboat is more expensive.
Just because someone doesn't go from NY to FL, it doesn't mean the boat
never leaves the dock--any more than never taking your car out of town
means that it doesn't get any use.
> First you have to set fair parameters. Then we'll stay within them.
Ah geeze, Steven...if you can't win, whine! <lol>
I really AM outa here till tonight...
Peggie
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> There was also the comment that powerboaters are more 'destination
> oriented'. My destination is 'on the boat' As far as being on the boat
> is concerned, being underway under sail is cheaper. If you discount the
> fact that we mostly all wind up back where we started from, sailing is
> cheaper.
Perhaps it really depends on how you want to spend your money. I've
never really given much thought to the fuel bills I've paid while
powerboating...or while sailboating. Having done both, these days I
prefer powerboating. I like to get to where I want to be on something
resembling my schedule.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!
Steven Shelikoff
> Your data is only as valid as your little sample in your little marina
> based upon the bias of your questionnaire and your bias in interpreting
> it. You cannot extrapolate it farther than that. I'm sure someone else
> could visit your marina, ask questions and come away with different
> results.
That's all I ever made it out to be. Real world experience of 40 or so
similar sized boats in my area point to sailing being less expensive
than powering. I'm not pretending that it's the same everywhere else.
It may be, but who knows?
> It's not that important. None of it is. Really.
In the grand sheme of things, you're right.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> I knew better than to check this one more time before logging off <sigh>
>
> > "Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't believe you're STILL at it!!
> >
> > Well, you started it!:)
>
> No I didn't...I just made an observation.
>
> > Statistics can be used to prove anything. One thing those statistics
> > don't include is the vast number of unlicensed sailboats because they
> > are smaller then a minimum size requirement and don't have an engine.
>
> Please explain to me how that can affect the comparison of the average
> cost of owning a 30-35' sailboat vs owning a 30-35' powerboat.
It can't. But it can affect statistics that show the overall cost of
sailing vs. the overall cost of powering. That's why you have to look
at these statistics with a careful eye.
> > Well, jeeze, if you don't ever go anywhere, I'll agree that both boats
> > cost the same to own. It's only when you actually go boating away from
> > the dock that the powerboat is more expensive.
>
> Just because someone doesn't go from NY to FL, it doesn't mean the boat
> never leaves the dock--any more than never taking your car out of town
> means that it doesn't get any use.
>
> > First you have to set fair parameters. Then we'll stay within them.
>
> Ah geeze, Steven...if you can't win, whine! <lol>
Whose whining and whose winning? All I'm saying is that in your
anecdotal evidence of sail vs. power, you are comparing a set of racing
sails and hardware to a "minimumly priced" (if that's a word) set of
engines.
> I really AM outa here till tonight...
Hope the boat's ok. The ice eater next to mine is working overtime.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> I knew better than to check this one more time before logging off <sigh>
>
> > "Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't believe you're STILL at it!!
> >
> > Well, you started it!:)
>
> No I didn't...I just made an observation.
>
> > Statistics can be used to prove anything. One thing those statistics
> > don't include is the vast number of unlicensed sailboats because they
> > are smaller then a minimum size requirement and don't have an engine.
>
> Please explain to me how that can affect the comparison of the average
> cost of owning a 30-35' sailboat vs owning a 30-35' powerboat.
>
> > cost the same to own. It's only when you actually go boating away from
> > the dock that the powerboat is more expensive.
>
> Just because someone doesn't go from NY to FL, it doesn't mean the boat
> never leaves the dock--any more than never taking your car out of town
> means that it doesn't get any use.
>
> > First you have to set fair parameters. Then we'll stay within them.
>
> Ah geeze, Steven...if you can't win, whine! <lol>
>
>
I happen to be looking over the specs on a 28' boat equipped with twin
Yanmar 190-hp diesels.
At WOT, the boat will do 37 miles an hour and burn 10 gallons of diesel,
for a fuel cost of under $15 an hour. Standard fuel tankage is 200
gallons. Figure 180 gallons useful. That's 18 hours of use at WOT, or
more than 650 miles of range.
Slow down to Steve's sailboat speed of 7 miles an hour and fuel
consumption drops to .7 gallon an hour. That's less than a buck an hour
for fuel and, at that consumption rate, you'd have enough fuel for 257
hours of running time. At seven miles an hour, your range would be 1800
miles. And, with decent breaks, most of those miles would be in a
straight line, not tacking to and fro.
A dollar an hour for fuel is less than chump change.
Oh...at 23 miles an hour, probably four times as fast as Steve's boat
will ordinarily sail, fuel will cost around $5 an hour.
Both powerboating and sailing can be inexpensive if you pick the right
boat.
For most of us, the question of which costs less is a really silly one,
one only hair-splitters would discuss...and never reach a conclusion.
In other words, a Steve-ism.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Oops. My brain just hit another bad sector.
Steven Shelikoff
> > >
> > > If you are talking about coastal cruising or short hops you are probably
> > > correct to say that a powerboat is actually less expensive than a sailboat.
> >
> > sailboat is still cheaper to make the same trip. Once you start getting
> > to short hop sailboats, you can eliminate the motor or at least use only
> > a small, cheap outboard of less then 10hp as a backup to the very
> > inexpensive sails that a smaller sailboat requires.
> >
> > Steve
>
> If saving bucks on fuel were so important, the sales figures for new
> sailboats wouldn't have been in the crapper for the last decade. There
Bad argument. The same thing can be said of SUVs vs. economy cars. And
no one can argue that an SUV is less expensive to operate than an
economy car.
> are very few manufacturers of cruising sailboats left, compared to a
> decade or so ago. Powerboat sales are booming. Sailing is lots of fun if
> you have the time for it, but I don't believe "saving bucks cruising" is
> a great motivator, unless you have infinite time.
If powerboats are what the people want, fine. But you can't use sales
figures to prove they are less expensive.
Steven Shelikoff
> For most of us, the question of which costs less is a really silly one,
> one only hair-splitters would discuss...and never reach a conclusion.
>
> In other words, a Steve-ism.
Good, a typical Harryism. I was waiting for one. You don't like the
message so attack the messenger. FYI, this topic has sparked a lot of
interesting debate from many people. It seems like it's more than just
me discussing it. The *real* reason YOU find it a silly discussion is
because it's on-topic for the newsgroup.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> > For most of us, the question of which costs less is a really silly one,
> > one only hair-splitters would discuss...and never reach a conclusion.
> >
> > In other words, a Steve-ism.
>
> Good, a typical Harryism. I was waiting for one. You don't like the
> message so attack the messenger. FYI, this topic has sparked a lot of
> interesting debate from many people. It seems like it's more than just
> me discussing it. The *real* reason YOU find it a silly discussion is
> because it's on-topic for the newsgroup.
>
I don't like or dislike the message or even the messenger. It's got
nothing to do with it being on topic or off-topic and it probably has
very little to do with real boating. Some folks like powerboats, some
folks like sailboats. Everyone can and will argue their side of it and,
in the end, hardly a mind will be changed. That's part of the fun of
posting in newsgroups. There's really no need to seriously try to trip
on participants on minor points or on points on which they stated
something a little differently than they stated before. Doing that is a
"Steve-ism."
Everyone already knows you burn less fuel when you raise sails instead
of turning on an engine.
--
Harry Krause
------------
How did Bill and Hillary meet? Dating the same woman!
Paul Kruse
<diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
>be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine,
That is absolutely correct. A wise boater always has an alternate
means of getting home. In some areas, a radio and a credit card is
all you need. In less well traveled areas, you will need some sort of
get home system installed onto your boat; and there are probably a
hundred different variations on how to do that.
I know that Dave points out that commercial ships commonly have only
one engine, but we are talking about recreational boats and that
statement has very little application here. If someone wants to
discuss reasons for that, then we probably should start a separate
thread on get home systems.
>and that will add
>to the costs and complication.
As Peggie rightly noted, Passage Makers, are a very small percentage
of the total boating population; but they are the breed that started
this thread, so I'll confine my comments to that sort of boat:
Many are power boats with a sail as an auxiliary. In that, they are
not so much different from a sailing voyager, which will have both
sail and power available to them. Personally, I prefer using the
generator engine as a get home system; and there are at least a half
dozen common ways of doing so. That way, you don't have to add
another engine.
>The costs of diesel fuel in most European countries are
>about three times as much as in the US (in some, like Belgium and
>Britain, pleasure boats are allowed to take on heating diesel which is
>about the same price as US disel), so that comes into the equation of
>price also.
As has already been noted in another thread, the cost of diesel fuel
in Europe and in the USA are almost exactly the same -- well less than
a dollar US per gallon in both cases. What is different are the
taxes. For me personally, that is a powerful reason to avoid that
part of the world; but should we ever take one of our boats cruising
in that direction, the trip would probably be planned such that we
would have to buy little or no fuel while we were there. That would
actually be a very workable plan for a Passage Maker.
Paul Kruse
Abercrombie) wrote:
>Hi, Paul- We've been here before, but...
That we have, and it is good that we declared a friendly truce. :-)
I will conceed that if someone wants to cross oceans on a minimum
budget, and that is his primary objective, then he will probably end
up with a sailboat of about 24-28 feet. You would be hard pressed to
find a Passage Maker in that size range that could get the job done,
though a few special ones have been built.
On the other hand, we need to be careful to compare boats that are
equals and that are reasonable. 45-50 feet would be the smallest
sailboat that I would find acceptable for long range cruising, for
example. It is a simple matter of usable living space, though I know
full well that I could cross safely in a much smaller boat. On the
other hand, I can find a powered voyager of about 36 feet that will
have the same amount of usable living space. The 36 foot power boat
will be far less expensive than the larger sailboat.
>Since we are
>counting the total cost, you may want to consider a used boat.
Either that, or else build you own. If you do that, you might want to
start with an old beat up sailboat hull. Even better, use a
commercial fishing troller. They are easily available on the
inexpensive used boat market, and would make very excellent powered
voyagers.
Paul Kruse
<diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, there is such a rare bird, an economy motor passagemaker and
>Larry KN4IM (hope I got his callsign right...) mentioned it sometimes
>ago
>it's a 20 ft with a 3000 miles range according to the designer/builder/
>owner that was described in the fall 99 issue of passagemaker. But as I
>called it, it's a "backpacker boat", doesn't even seem to have a head...
That turned out to be quite a boat. The designer, builder, owner has
been using it for a lot of long range cruising lately, gone to some
interesting places. When he gets near a computer with a phone line,
he has become a regular poster on the Trawler World List.
A very low budget boat, indeed.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> > > For most of us, the question of which costs less is a really silly one,
> > > one only hair-splitters would discuss...and never reach a conclusion.
> > >
> > > In other words, a Steve-ism.
> >
> > Good, a typical Harryism. I was waiting for one. You don't like the
> > message so attack the messenger. FYI, this topic has sparked a lot of
> > interesting debate from many people. It seems like it's more than just
> > me discussing it. The *real* reason YOU find it a silly discussion is
> > because it's on-topic for the newsgroup.
> >
>
> I don't like or dislike the message or even the messenger. It's got
> nothing to do with it being on topic or off-topic and it probably has
> very little to do with real boating. Some folks like powerboats, some
> folks like sailboats. Everyone can and will argue their side of it and,
> in the end, hardly a mind will be changed. That's part of the fun of
> posting in newsgroups. There's really no need to seriously try to trip
> on participants on minor points or on points on which they stated
> something a little differently than they stated before. Doing that is a
> "Steve-ism."
And doing what you are doing above is a Harryism. That is, you can't
bear to see a thread continue without your name in it somewhere. Even
if you have no interest in the thread, you have to at least point out
that the GREAT HARRY KRAUSE HAS NO INTEREST IN THIS THREAD so that all
the rest of us mere mortals know that you feel the topic is not worthy
of discussion.
> Everyone already knows you burn less fuel when you raise sails instead
> of turning on an engine.
Of course everyone knows that. But if you look at the subject of the
thread, it's not only about burning fuel. It's about the cost of
powering vs. sailing. If you don't have anything constructive to add,
why not try a new trick and keep silent?
John Abercrombie
>Actually, there is such a rare bird, an economy motor passagemaker and
>Larry KN4IM (hope I got his callsign right...) mentioned it sometimes
>ago
>it's a 20 ft with a 3000 miles range according to the designer/builder/
>owner that was described in the fall 99 issue of passagemaker. But as I
>called it, it's a "backpacker boat", doesn't even seem to have a head...
>john
>
Any new boat is so much more expensive than used (if available),
especially if custom or semi-custom built. I don't know if the boat in
question is a mass-produced boat or not. A small custom built
daysailer these days can be had in multiples of $10k; you can have a
nice 30 ft cruising sloop built for $150K. So just being 20 ft long
doesn't necessarily mean cheap!
In a few years (hopefully) there will be a number of such boats
available used, and the prices will be reasonable.
And, of course, the 20 ft boat should use hardly any fuel.
Even if you build yur own boat, the cost of materials is close to the
cost of a similar used boat. But, when you are done (years later) you
do have the equivalent of a new custom-built boat.
John
Steven Shelikoff
> On the other hand, we need to be careful to compare boats that are
> equals and that are reasonable. 45-50 feet would be the smallest
> sailboat that I would find acceptable for long range cruising, for
That's a helluva a sailboat you'd have there. I think you'll find that
the vast majority of cruising sailboats are smaller than 50' and have
plenty of room for a couple or two to live on. You have some pretty
expensive tastes.
David Smalley
>
> use a
> commercial fishing troller. They are easily available on the
> inexpensive used boat market, and would make very excellent powered
> voyagers.
And that is _exactly_ the tack that I am currently working on.
IMO I will be able to get:
-more comfortable living quarters (IOW _bigger_ inside)
-on average less $/year upkeep
-on average quicker point to point
--
DAVe
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
>
>
> > Everyone already knows you burn less fuel when you raise sails instead
> > of turning on an engine.
>
> Of course everyone knows that. But if you look at the subject of the
> thread, it's not only about burning fuel. It's about the cost of
> powering vs. sailing. If you don't have anything constructive to add,
> why not try a new trick and keep silent?
>
> Steve
OK, Steve. Here goes. I have X amount of time and I want to cover Y
amount of distance. I can't afford the cost of taking more time than I
have. Therefore, I use a powerboat because it will take me where I want
to go without having to spend more of a commodity--time--that I have in
short supply.
In this example, the "cost" of sailing is far higher than the cost of
powerboating.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Men! Learn from John Bobbitt! Sleep on your stomach!
hkr...@capuantispam.net
Subscribe to National Fisherman magazine. Plenty of good solid boats
discussed and many boats for sale.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Real men wear leather - chiffon wrinkles too easily.
David Smalley
> >Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat, it might
> >be a good idea to have another, "get-me-home" engine,
>
> That is absolutely correct. A wise boater always has an alternate
> means of getting home. In some areas, a radio and a credit card is
> all you need. In less well traveled areas, you will need some sort of
> get home system installed onto your boat; and there are probably a
> hundred different variations on how to do that.
>
> I know that Dave points out that commercial ships commonly have only
> one engine, but we are talking about recreational boats and that
> statement has very little application here. If someone wants to
> discuss reasons for that, then we probably should start a separate
> thread on get home systems.
Ok!
My point about commercial vessels having only one engine was ment to
illustrate the fact that many people who really care about keeping a
schedule have chosen to have only one diesel. You can be sure that a lot
of time and effort has gone into their decision.
> Personally, I prefer using the
> generator engine as a get home system; and there are at least a half
> dozen common ways of doing so. That way, you don't have to add
> another engine.
I like this idea as well. My guess is the idea of another full motor
gearbox, stuffingbox, folding prop is the _best_ but I have yet to
actually see one of these systems. I have seen some pictures.
--
DAVe
David Smalley
> I don't like or dislike the message or even the messenger. It's got
> nothing to do with it being on topic or off-topic and it probably has
> very little to do with real boating. Some folks like powerboats, some
> folks like sailboats.
Y'know Harry, from the tone of many of your posts over the last few days
it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
just like fishing.
Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
cruising group.
As I understand it cuising is the art of enjoying time on the boat. You
have stated that you only like a boat that gets you to the fishing site
and back as quickly as possible.
I just don't get it.
--
DAVe
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Everyone already knows you burn less fuel when you raise sails instead
> > > of turning on an engine.
> >
> > Of course everyone knows that. But if you look at the subject of the
> > thread, it's not only about burning fuel. It's about the cost of
> > powering vs. sailing. If you don't have anything constructive to add,
> > why not try a new trick and keep silent?
> >
> > Steve
>
> OK, Steve. Here goes. I have X amount of time and I want to cover Y
> amount of distance. I can't afford the cost of taking more time than I
> have. Therefore, I use a powerboat because it will take me where I want
> to go without having to spend more of a commodity--time--that I have in
> short supply.
That's a perfectly valid reason for powering instead of sailing. If you
are on a tight schedule, the extra cost of powering would allow you to
make that schedule where sailing might not.
> In this example, the "cost" of sailing is far higher than the cost of
> powerboating.
Yup, and that's why (except in the Chesapeake) you don't see all that
many sail powered fishing boats anymore. Of course, since the point of
your boating seems to be to get to the fishing spots in a set amount of
time and not the actual trip getting there, one could just as easily say
that the "cost" of fishing from your own boat is far higher than the
cost of buying it at market.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
>
> > I don't like or dislike the message or even the messenger. It's got
> > nothing to do with it being on topic or off-topic and it probably has
> > very little to do with real boating. Some folks like powerboats, some
> > folks like sailboats.
>
> Y'know Harry, from the tone of many of your posts over the last few days
> it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
> just like fishing.
>
> Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
> blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
> cruising group.
Well, I'd probably enjoy a circumnavigation on the QE II, if she really
has been refurbished nicely. In a small boat, no. There are too many
things competing for my time.
I've done long cruises in sailboats. They were fun when I did them.
> As I understand it cuising is the art of enjoying time on the boat. You
> have stated that you only like a boat that gets you to the fishing site
> and back as quickly as possible.
>
> I just don't get it.
>
> --
> DAVe
I've spent most of my life on boats. I've raced boats, sailed boats,
cruised boats, piddled in boats. Nowadays I like to fish in boats. Next
year, who knows.
--
Harry Krause
------------
People like that are the reason we have middle fingers.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
Of course it is, but I don't fish to catch dinner. I rarely bring home a
fish for the table, Steve.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Rush Limbaugh is the National Enquirer for conservatives.
David Smalley
> > Yup, and that's why (except in the Chesapeake) you don't see all that
> > many sail powered fishing boats anymore. Of course, since the point of
> > your boating seems to be to get to the fishing spots in a set amount of
> > time and not the actual trip getting there, one could just as easily say
> > that the "cost" of fishing from your own boat is far higher than the
> > cost of buying it at market.
> Of course it is, but I don't fish to catch dinner. I rarely bring home a
> fish for the table, Steve.
The plot thickens...
So Harry,
You rarely come home w/ fish? Sounds to me like you're the one cheating
on your gullible mate. No wonder you accused me of such.
--
DAVe
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> > Y'know Harry, from the tone of many of your posts over the last few days
> > it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
> > just like fishing.
> >
> > Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
> > blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
> > cruising group.
>
> Well, I'd probably enjoy a circumnavigation on the QE II, if she really
> has been refurbished nicely.
That has little to nothing to do w/ boating, and you know it.
In a small boat, no. There are too many
> things competing for my time.
Like posting off topic here?
> > As I understand it cuising is the art of enjoying time on the boat. You
> > have stated that you only like a boat that gets you to the fishing site
> > and back as quickly as possible.
> >
> > I just don't get it.
> I've spent most of my life on boats. I've raced boats, sailed boats,
> cruised boats, piddled in boats. Nowadays I like to fish in boats. Next
> year, who knows.
More like "next post, who knows".
--
DAVe
hkr...@capuantispam.net
You think? Especially when she's with me in the boat? Hmmm. Perhaps
while she's fishing off the bow and I'm casting plugs off the stern?
I'm a catch and release fisherperson these days, Dave. I take a fish
home for the table if I've gut caught it or if it is obviously going to
die. Once in a great while I'll keep a legal-sized striper or a
reprsentative of some other plentiful species. I don't keep largemouth
bass I catch on freshwater, but I will keep a couple of decent
bluegills.
It's the catching that is important to me, not the killing.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Her sweater was so tight that men could hardly breathe.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> > > Y'know Harry, from the tone of many of your posts over the last few days
> > > it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
> > > just like fishing.
> > >
> > > Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
> > > blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
> > > cruising group.
> >
> > Well, I'd probably enjoy a circumnavigation on the QE II, if she really
> > has been refurbished nicely.
>
> That has little to nothing to do w/ boating, and you know it.
It does if you get to steer.
>
--
Harry Krause
------------
Where is the 'ANY' key?
David Smalley
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> > >
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > > > Y'know Harry, from the tone of many of your posts over the last few days
> > > > it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
> > > > just like fishing.
> > > >
> > > > Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
> > > > blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
> > > > cruising group.
> > >
> > > Well, I'd probably enjoy a circumnavigation on the QE II, if she really
> > > has been refurbished nicely.
> >
> > That has little to nothing to do w/ boating, and you know it.
>
> It does if you get to steer.
And therefore it has nothing to do w/ boating, because you have never
steered a cruise ship at sea.
--
DAVe
David Smalley
> > The plot thickens...
> >
> > So Harry,
> >
> > You rarely come home w/ fish? Sounds to me like you're the one cheating
> > on your gullible mate. No wonder you accused me of such.
> You think?
Yes I do.
Especially when she's with me in the boat? Hmmm. Perhaps
> while she's fishing off the bow and I'm casting plugs off the stern?
Could be.
> I'm a catch and release fisherperson these days,
Could Harry be an alias for a female? Is that why you detested MadCow so
much?
Dave. I take a fish
> home for the table if I've gut caught it or if it is obviously going to
> die. Once in a great while I'll keep a legal-sized striper or a
> reprsentative of some other plentiful species. I don't keep largemouth
> bass I catch on freshwater, but I will keep a couple of decent
> bluegills.
Bluegills? That is absolutely the most tasteless fish I have ever
encountered. Thicker and thicker...
> It's the catching that is important to me, not the killing.
Uh huh. Less and less believable. How's the old saying go..."methinks
thou protesteth too much".
--
DAVe
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
>
> Bluegills? That is absolutely the most tasteless fish I have ever
> encountered. Thicker and thicker...
Perhaps you or your wife should learn how to clean and cook fish.
Need some help in the kitchen?
--
Harry Krause
------------
To eat at Dave's house, perchance, to barf.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > > > it's begining to sound like you don't care for boats or boating, you
> > > > > just like fishing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than boating around the world you would rather fly a plane. That
> > > > > blows me away, and makes me wonder why you read or post here in the
> > > > > cruising group.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I'd probably enjoy a circumnavigation on the QE II, if she really
> > > > has been refurbished nicely.
> > >
> > > That has little to nothing to do w/ boating, and you know it.
> >
> > It does if you get to steer.
>
> And therefore it has nothing to do w/ boating, because you have never
> steered a cruise ship at sea.
>
> --
> DAVe
Actually, I have, Dave, but not while it was carrying passengers for
hire. It was during the sea trials of a new gambling/cruise ship in Jax,
and I got to take the helm for a couple of minutes. I've also been
allowed to take the helm of a large new ferryboat under similar
circumstances. It didn't have a helm wheel, however; it was steered via
hydraulic levers. That experience reminded me of controlling an
earthmover. Both events were PR gestures.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Part-time musicians are semiconductors.
Joe Della Barba
wrote:
Commercial duty diesels break down so seldom, that as a business
descision, it is MUCH smarter to pay for the odd salvage/tow job than
pay for 2 engines. OTOH, if it is you and your family onboard you
might look at it a little bit differently. Something to keep in mind
is that most engines die due to bad fuel, so that would take out any
number of engines.
Joe
Steven Shelikoff
> > things competing for my time.
>
> Like posting off topic here?
You picked up on that as well. I was going to mention this when Harry
was talking about how valuable his time is. Must not be all that
valuable considering his prolific posting habits. If he unplugged the
computer and got a sailboat, he could reach his fabled fishing spots
with plenty of time left for real work.
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> > Please explain to me how that can affect the comparison of the average
> > cost of owning a 30-35' sailboat vs owning a 30-35' powerboat.
>
> It can't. But it can affect statistics that show the overall cost of
> sailing vs. the overall cost of powering.
You are the first person to use the word "overall." The argument has
been about comparable sized boats, not the overall cost of sailing vs.
powering. If you want argue to the overall cost of boats, period,
regardless of size, then power and sail would lose to rowboats and
canoes...'cuz paddles cost less to replace than sails.
> That's why you have to look
> at these statistics with a careful eye.
And watch YOU like a hawk to make sure you don't succeed in drawing me
off into a completely different argument! :-)))
> > Ah geeze, Steven...if you can't win, whine! <lol>
>
> Whose whining and whose winning?
You're certainly not winning! :-))
>All I'm saying is that in your
> anecdotal evidence of sail vs. power,
Nothing anecdotal about MY evidence...
> you are comparing a set of racing
> sails and hardware to a "minimumly priced" (if that's a word) set of
> engines.
The word is "minimally"...and there's nothing minimally priced about
boat engines--singularly OR in pairs. But I've never compared engines
with sails--or anything else specifically with anything else. YOU'RE the
one who keeps trying lock onto a premise of your own making, establish
your own set of parameters...and each time you're caught doing it and
hoisted on your own petard, you cry "foul" and try a totally different
tack. :-)
> Hope the boat's ok. The ice eater next to mine is working overtime.
My boat is fine, thank you.
Peggie
David Smalley
> > encountered. Thicker and thicker...
>
> Perhaps you or your wife should learn how to clean and cook fish.
> Need some help in the kitchen?
It was prepared by an avowed bluegill lover's wife. Everything else on
the taqble was delicious. They both thought they were in heaven.
Thankfully I am no longer married. Hopefully a permanant condition.
--
DAVe
Joe Della Barba
smaller planing powerboats. You can get a long way in a few hours at
40 knots and then the weather comes up and you can only do 3 knots:(
I once flew kids home from Walkers Cay because they needed to get to
school and the 22' Wellcraft was not even close to being able to get
home in the 25 knot winds and 6' seas that came up. Sure was easy to
get there in flat seas! Parents made a wise choice to wait for nice
weather to go home.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > hkr...@capuantispam.net wrote:
> > In a small boat, no. There are too many
> > > things competing for my time.
> >
> > Like posting off topic here?
>
> You picked up on that as well. I was going to mention this when Harry
> was talking about how valuable his time is. Must not be all that
> valuable considering his prolific posting habits. If he unplugged the
> computer and got a sailboat, he could reach his fabled fishing spots
> with plenty of time left for real work.
>
> Steve
You two are really control freaks. You need to learn how to let go and
stop worrying about what others do with their time.
My work requires me to remain pretty close to the DC area until the fall
elections are over. I can only grab a couple days off here and there.
What I do with my off-time between taking on, researching, writing and
finishing up assignments really is not your concern, despite your best
efforts to make it so.
As I stated previously, I've had sailboats. They were fun when I had
them, but I don't have the time to dick around with one now. Further, it
is so damned hot on the Bay in the summer, the last thing I want to do
is loll around on a slow-moving sailboat.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Chicloexdus: The route taken by a gumball to avoid capture
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> > > Please explain to me how that can affect the comparison of the average
> > > cost of owning a 30-35' sailboat vs owning a 30-35' powerboat.
> >
> > It can't. But it can affect statistics that show the overall cost of
> > sailing vs. the overall cost of powering.
>
> You are the first person to use the word "overall." The argument has
> been about comparable sized boats, not the overall cost of sailing vs.
You can pick comparible sizes and still skew the statistics if the sizes
you're talking about are not fairly represented in the statistics.
> powering. If you want argue to the overall cost of boats, period,
> regardless of size, then power and sail would lose to rowboats and
> canoes...'cuz paddles cost less to replace than sails.
I know it's been done, but I don't think I'd want to row or paddle to
the Bahamas from here.
> > you are comparing a set of racing
> > sails and hardware to a "minimumly priced" (if that's a word) set of
> > engines.
>
> The word is "minimally"...and there's nothing minimally priced about
> boat engines--singularly OR in pairs. But I've never compared engines
> with sails--or anything else specifically with anything else. YOU'RE the
Yes, you have.
> one who keeps trying lock onto a premise of your own making, establish
> your own set of parameters...and each time you're caught doing it and
> hoisted on your own petard, you cry "foul" and try a totally different
> tack. :-)
Peggie, all along this is a quote of what you said that I'm crying
"foul" about:
"Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." wrote:
> In '96 I bought a 16 (at the time) yr old 32' twin engine
> powerboat...gas engines, gas generator...in non-running and
> uninhabitable condition. I've spent about $15k to make her pristine
> again, but only about $3k of it was spent on the engines and
> genset...both of which have been happily purring like kittens for nearly
> 4 years now. Another member of my YC has 10 yr old Catalina 30...the
> same year I bought my bought, he spent nearly $10k for just a new main,
> 2 jibs, and 2 self-tailing winches...I could have completely repowered
> for less than that!
You are comparing the cost of repowering your boat with the cost of
sails for a sailboat of similar size. And I say this comparison is
unfair because for you to repower a 30' racing boat with engines
suitable for racing, it would cost many times the price of the new
racing sails and racing winches on the Catalina 30. If you want to
compare the cost of repowering *your* boat with engines suitable for
cruising Lake Lanier to the cost of similar use sails and winches for
the Catalina 30, you'd find that the Cat 30 could have gotten by with
spending around $2000 for new sails and winches, and could expect over
20 years of use from them. I don't think you could repower for that.
> > Hope the boat's ok. The ice eater next to mine is working overtime.
>
> My boat is fine, thank you.
Glad to hear it.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
Sorry to hear that.
--
Harry Krause
------------
I can't think of anything that remotely fits the subject.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
I've always thought the round bilge planing powerboats of the previous
generations rode easier, if not faster, than the current generation of
deep vee powerboats, in really sloppy seas. It seemed to me you could
make 15-20 miles an hour in some of those older boats when the deep vee
boats of the same size had to slow waaaaaaay down.
Sometimes when following a 40-50' modern commercial fishing boat into
the jetties, I've noticed them riding smooth and bow slightly high,
while the high speed hulls were bouncing their occupants to kingdom
come.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Eagles may soar but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> The grey area, is the 25-35 ft range of boats used for typical day use and
> maybe weekend overnight cruising on bays, lakes and rivers.
Nothing gray about that area (but the range is a bit bigger: 25-40'): it
may not have been true 20 years ago...but because today's *typical*
owner of both power AND sail no longer wants a "boat" as it's
traditionally defined, he wants a floating condo with ALL the same
amenities (which include every comfort of home that can be crammed into
it), it *typically* costs the owners of those sailboats 20% more to own,
operate and maintain it than it *typically* costs the owner of a
comparable size powerboat.
> If the
> powerboat is actually run much of the time, compared to the sailboat
> sailing under power, I suspect fuel costs will make the power boat,
> overall, more expensive. If both sail and power spend much of the time
> at the slip or on the hook, I doubt there's really much difference in
> overall cost.
A lot of "I suspect" in your comments, but nothing to back them up.
> Something not mentioned much in the thread so far, is the major effect of
> depreciation on overall cost. I suspect the sailboat could end up with
> less depreciation, and therefore lower overall costs compared to the
> powerboat. That's an unsupported guess.
The new selling price of a sailboat will be lower because of the
difference in engine costs...most powerboats over30' have twin engines,
each of which, along with their "appendages (transmission etc) cost
considerably more than a sailboat aux engine....and there's often a
second helm--duplicating that cost. However, the percentage of
depreciation is gonna be about the same...and after about 10-13 years
(depends on how many of that make/model/year there are out there), both
cease depreciating altogether. So depreciation of both power and sail
depends upon the age of the boat at the time of purchase. It ceases to
be a factor if both boats are old enough to have ceased depreciating by
the time the current owner buys them. Then inflation becomes the only
factor.
> Anyone have figures comparing passage making power and sail boat depreciation?
How can you compare the depreciation of a 28' sailboat with a 70-100'
powerboat? :-) It's not so much the size of the boat that makes the
difference in whether it can be a passagemaker, but the amount of fuel
the powerboat can carry...so while a 28' sailboat could circumnavigate,
there's not a 28' powerboat in existance that could carry enough fuel
(and still be seaworthy for passagemaking) to go more than a few hundred
miles. For one thing, there just isn't enough space in the hull...and
even if there were, the sheer weight of that much fuel would be more
than any engines that would fit in a 28' boat could move.
Peggie
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> Peggie, all along this is a quote of what you said that I'm crying
> "foul" about:
>
> "Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc." wrote:
> > In '96 I bought a 16 (at the time) yr old 32' twin engine
> > powerboat...gas engines, gas generator...in non-running and
> > uninhabitable condition. I've spent about $15k to make her pristine
> > again, but only about $3k of it was spent on the engines and
> > genset...both of which have been happily purring like kittens for nearly
> > 4 years now. Another member of my YC has 10 yr old Catalina 30...the
> > same year I bought my bought, he spent nearly $10k for just a new main,
> > 2 jibs, and 2 self-tailing winches...I could have completely repowered
> > for less than that!
>
> You are comparing the cost of repowering your boat with the cost of
> sails for a sailboat of similar size.
I DIDN'T repower my boat! I COULD have, not with new but with rmfr'd
longblocks, for what he paid for his sails--PLUS 2 winches and
rollerfurling, btw (which you conveniently left out)--but my boat didn't
need repowering.
So what IS your point? :-)
> > My boat is fine, thank you.
>
> Glad to hear it.
I have a bilge heater, and everything that's vulnerable BUT my holding
tank is at that end of the boat...it's under my v-berth and neither
empty nor has any antifreeze in it, so I was a wee bit concerned it
might have frozen. But the lake doesn't ever get much below 45...so
apparently it kept the holding tank warm enough.
Peggie
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> I see a lot of boats, both power and sail, in both the Cal Delta ,SF Bay,
> Monterey Bay, Santa Cruz, Lake Tahoe, and at boat shows all over
> California, and there is no way the same size sailboat and powerboat
> typically have anywhere near the same amenities. Those power boat
> amenities wouldn't even fit in a smaller sailboat of the range we're
> talking about here.
I can't imagine what would fit in a 35' powerboat that wouldn't fit in a
30' sailboat...and I've seen microwaves, tv/vcrs, CD players, water
heaters, electric toilets, generators, refrigerators, heat/AC (what else
IS there?) on both. Fewer of those items on boats under 35'...more on
boats 35-40'...but the owners of both power and sail seem to want the
same bells and whistles on the same size boats.
> I believe all along in this thread, you're being heavily influenced by the
> oversize floating "condos" type boats, in your area, so prevalant of big
> lakes and reservoirs vs more typical boats used in coastal locations.
If you're referring to "houseboats," no...they aren't boats, they're
just mobile homes on a barge hull. And few of 'em are under 40' too.
> >it *typically* costs the owners of those sailboats 20% more to own,
> > operate and maintain it than it *typically* costs the owner of a
> > comparable size powerboat.
>
> Got anything to back that up, besides your opinion and repeated statements?
Only a blurb in one of the marine trade journals a couple of years ago,
and the agreement among a bunch of marine surveyors when it was brought
up at an ABYC committee meeting.
>
> If you think a same size powerboat doesn't use more fuel cruising than a
> sailboat (whether under power or sail)...I'd suggest you stick to being a
> "poop" expert...only. ;-)
I can't seem to pry y'all loose from fuel consumption only. Fuel is only
a part of the cost of owning, maintaining and operating a boat.
> > > Something not mentioned much in the thread so far, is the major effect of
> > > depreciation on overall cost. I suspect the sailboat could end up with
> > > less depreciation, and therefore lower overall costs compared to the
> > > powerboat. That's an unsupported guess.
> >
> > The new selling price of a sailboat will be lower because of the
> > difference in engine costs...most powerboats over30' have twin engines,
> > each of which, along with their "appendages (transmission etc) cost
> > considerably more than a sailboat aux engine....and there's often a
> > second helm--duplicating that cost. However, the percentage of
> > depreciation is gonna be about the same...and after about 10-13 years
> > (depends on how many of that make/model/year there are out there), both
> > cease depreciating altogether. So depreciation of both power and sail
> > depends upon the age of the boat at the time of purchase. It ceases to
> > be a factor if both boats are old enough to have ceased depreciating by
> > the time the current owner buys them. Then inflation becomes the only
> > factor.
>
> Got anything to back up all those opinions?
Well...yes. And you can access Nada.com as easily as I can.
>
> > > Anyone have figures comparing passage making power and sail boat
> depreciation?
>
> Still waiting for figures, your post didn't provide any, just opposing opinion.
>
> > How can you compare the depreciation of a 28' sailboat with a 70-100'
> > powerboat? :-) It's not so much the size of the boat that makes the
> > difference in whether it can be a passagemaker, but the amount of fuel
> > the powerboat can carry...so while a 28' sailboat could circumnavigate,
> > there's not a 28' powerboat in existance that could carry enough fuel
> > (and still be seaworthy for passagemaking) to go more than a few hundred
> > miles. For one thing, there just isn't enough space in the hull...and
> > even if there were, the sheer weight of that much fuel would be more
> > than any engines that would fit in a 28' boat could move.
> >
> > Peggie
>
> You really need to decide whether you want to consider same size boats or
> not Peggie...you're flip-flopping back and forth in this thread depending
> on which better serves your argument.
Nope...I've been trying since the beginning of this discussion to
confine it to the *typical* situation: the relative *typical costs of
owning, operating and maintaining the *typical* same size boat by the
*typical* owner of those boats...and passagemaking isn't typical. If you
insist on discussing the relative costs of passagemaking, there's
nothing TO discuss...'cuz the *typical* 25-40' powerboat isn't capable
of passagemaking.
> Have you ever owned a sailboat?
Does a 10' Cape Dory count? :-)))
Peggie
Evan Gatehouse & Diane Selkirk
> > > > news:389CD40C...@bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > > jean somerhausen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once you're going to do any seerious cruising on a power boat,
it might
will add
> > > > > > to the costs and complication.
> > > > David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > > There are literally _thousands_ of commercial ships w/ only one
diesel
> > > > > engine.
I wrote:
Very true, but they do have full time engineers and machine shops aboard to
do repairs as they go...
Dave wrote:
> Not all of them. IMO only the biggest and best.
Boats, folks, boats.
I agree that lots of commercial boats have single engines and no full time
engineers or machine shops aboard! But my response was to the word "ships"
> Most commercial fishing boats 100' and under and perhaps even larger
> only have a single diesel engine. Many Maine lobsterfishermen have
> single diesel powered boats in the 25-40' range and certainly don't have
> engineers or machine shops aboard, and they go out in weather conditions
> that would frighten most pleasure boaters. These men are not foolish. If
> they thought they needed a boat with twin diesels, that is what they
> would have.
True, but are they out of VHF range of other boaters or shore? If you're
voyaging far from home or crossing oceans, that single engine better be
pretty reliable or you better have a lot of spare parts to fix it.
--
Evan Gatehouse
s/v Ceilydh
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
>
> In article <389E1A92...@bellsouth.net>, peg...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Does a 10' Cape Dory count? :-)))
>
>
> ...which brings me to this completely off-topic personal comment and question.
>
> What's a classy attractive accomplished lady like yourself doing spending
> so much time online in the newsgroups. I would think your "social
> opportunities" offer far more "quality" uses of your time? :-)
I would think so too :-)...but at my age, the pickin's are THIN!!
> That was a complement above!
I know...and I do appreciate it! :-))))
> And...what sort of business is the "Hall Group"?
At the moment it's just a shell corporation. When I first incorporated,
I did so as The Hall Group, Inc. d/b/a Peal Products (I also have
another d/b/a, The Hall Closet--a catchall that could be anything I
wanted it to be...I used it as the in-house ad agency). Raritan only
bought all the rights to Peal Products--trade names, vendor contracts
etc...they didn't buy The Hall Group. In fact, they retained The Hall
Group as marketing consultants...they didn't employ me.
So I guess the short answer to your question is, The Hall Group is a
marketing consulting firm.
> I'd guess you must have
> had a "non-compete" clause as part of your association with Raritan.
Fortunately, I did...and--I'm still on very good terms with Raritan, so
I may yet take on some marketing projects for them. Meanwhile, I'm
available! :-)))
Peggie
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
>
> Peggy - I FINALLY realized where this 20% figure comes from. It was a
> study that showed the AVERAGE sailboat spends 20% more per year at a
> MARINA than the average powerboat.
Nononononono...you haven't figured out a thing. Dockage, financing,
insurance, don't enter into it...only the cost of operating and
maintaining to specs...and you must compare boats that are of comparable
size, not a 16' ski boat with a 25' sailboat.
And btw...very FEW boats--sail or power--on inland waters are on
moorings...they're all in slips somewhere. Not necessarily in marinas,
though. I seem to recall seeing something a year or so ago that, due to
the development explosion around Lake Lanier, there are now more boats
(most of which would be power) at private docks on the lake than at
marinas.
You certainly kicked off a lively discussion!! :-)))
Peggie
>
> On the power side - You have tens or hundreds of small powerboats in
> those dry storage forklift things. They are boats like 16' Boston
> Whalers that obviously aren't a big revenue stream for the marina as
> far as repairs, painting, etc.
>
> On the sail side - The low budget sailors are not in marinas. I have
> been quoted between $350 and $500 a month for a slip for my boat. We
> are on moorings, at friends docks, etc.
> Small sailboats aren't in the dry storage racks, they are on cars, in
> backyards, or pulled up on the beach.
>
> So the power population is diluted with a ton of low dollar runabouts
> and the sail population is skewed toward the more well off sailors
> with bigger boats.
> This study is WORTH LESS THAN NOTHING to figure out average costs of
> running a boat.
> Joe
Peggie Hall/The HallGroup, Inc.
> I just wonder what do you mean with a same size motor and sail boat?
Same LOA
> There are many types of motor boats, some are more or less rectangular
> and some seem more like sailing baots, but have in most cases less
> overhangs and are beamier.
The "rectangular" boats are houseboats--floating mobile homes, not
boats.
> If you mean LOA, then you have more living space and volume in the
> motor boat.
Not necessarily...in fact, just the opposite can be true because so much
of the LOA of an express cruiser (power) is given over to cockpit above
an engine compartment, which isn't true of sailboats. For instance, my
previous boat was 34' LOA...15' of it was cockpit. You wouldn't find
that to be true of a 34' sailboat....there'd be quarterberths and other
living space below under the cockpit. My current boat is 32' LOA...but a
different configuration that nobody build anymore, which is a
shame...'cuz it has at least 50% more living space than my 34' did.
> If you speak about all the toys the people have in their boats, I am
> sure that a 32 foot motor boat usually has more household appliances
> than you can fit in a typical 32 foot cruising boat.
Now YOU have to define what you mean by "cruising" boat. And is it the
typical weekend toy you'll find in most marinas? I don't think
so...'cuz the cruiser/passagemaker has to make every cubic inch count
for the essentials...so there isn't room for the "toys." But all you
have to do is log onto the Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau or any of the
other owners' websites to see what's important to the typical boat
owner. Very few live-aboards...no cruisers. They're asking each other
where to put a tv/vcr, a microwave, adding a swim platform, more hot
water, heat/ac, electric toilets, refrigeration, cockpit stereo
speakers, cabin decor and barbeque grills...they're not asking about how
to equip or provision for cruising.
> If one is considering a cuise as a way of life,
That's where everyone is going astray: the typical owner DOESN'T
cruise...is likely to be on inland waters...and spends weekends on his
boat, entertaining, doing tan maintenance...and maybe a little club
racing.
> one could think that
> similar size means that you have the same comfort without regard to
> the propulsion. I suspect that the sailing boat will be bigger at
> the first sight. In most cases it must be longer.
Same LOA, Laurie...
Cruising sailors MAY be the last of the very unique breed. Before
fiberglass, only a few "men who went down to the sea in ships" owned
boats...'cuz they were the only ones who were willing to do all the
scraping and replanking and recaulking wooden hulls constantly required.
Today's typical owner--power or sail--doesn't even want to have to
maintain wood trim, much less an entire wooden boat...and more and more
"sailors" are almost as clueless out there as their stinkpotting
counterparts. No more working foredecks on sailboats--everything is done
from the cockpit now...and they're building powerboats with no access to
the foredeck from the cockpit. Which is prob'ly just as well...'cuz the
so-called "safety rails" aren't knee-high and the decks so rounded that
it isn't safe to be out there unless the boat is stopped and the engines
are off anyway. The people who buy 'em aren't "mariners"...not even
close. Cruising sailors may be the only true "mariners" left.
So there's just no way to compare cruising boats with the "typical"
boat...or their owners.
Sad, ain't it...??
Peggie