Power or Sail

[paul.devalier]

And I add three real world comparisons.
My neighbour and I both go to Elba. I have a volvo penta d2-40. He has a MAN dual 600hp power plant. He arrives in about five hours and has spent 700-800 euro. He has also spent all 100% of the time on motor, somewhat uncomfortably but he gets there fast and then spends time at port or at anchor. His slip fees are the same as mine.
I get there in two days, if there is low wind and I follow coastal breezes and have to change tack it might take 3 days. Typically for a fixed destination it will push me to use my motor : often as an accelerator with sails up - if the point of sail allows.
I will spend for Elba about 4 hours motor in the summer.
His cost last month was 730 euros just for fuel (real world figure).
My cost was 18 euros for fuel. Depending on your reasoning you may also want to add a slip fee overnight at Pisa for 100 euros.

You can see it as a cost if the point is just to get there. Or you can see it as a journey cost, touring Pisa and watching the lovely coast.

My other neighbour has a 12 meter Vauquiez sailboat. He spent 30 minutes on motor max (exiting the port and dropping anchor) his cost was 8 euros and he crossed in 12 hours straight south dawn to dusk.

Three different styles. Three different paths. Very different costs for one of them.

[SV_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Open-d

I watch a lot of YouTube videos and have "learned" that in a sailboat you can expect to sail 1/3 or the time, power 1/3 or the time and sail under power 1/3 of the time.

YouTube has a lot of people on sailboats who enjoy the lifestyle, rather than the sailing itself. Their literal jobs are to make content.

If you look at some of the older channels in that vein, especially boats with electric motors and limited range under power, you will see that they sail more often than not. Their sail inventory is a bit larger - for a cruising sloop, that typically means a fully battened mainsail, a #2 furling genoa, and a light downwind sail (for example, a drifter, gennaker, or a spinnaker).

Learning to trim to the conditions isn't especially complicated, but knowing when to do things such as using the outhaul to flatten the mainsail, or easing the vang to allow the mainsail's to twist a bit aloft, and so on are skills that we rarely see on the typical YouTube cruiser. Maybe they're doing it off camera.

It's a different style of cruising, for sure. It's slower and more technically hands-on. But boats under sail can and do circumnavigate without motoring - I believe the Pardeys circumnavigated both ways without an engine on board.

[paul.devalier]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

One hour of operating costs of a powerboat compared to a sailboat is way out of context... Total cost of operation comprises fixed and variable costs.... Costs between power and sail were effectively the same.
The only caveat I'll add is that for folks on the ultra-low end of the personal wealth spectrum, it's a lot less expensive to shoe-string a sailboat than a powerboat."

I fully agree. And in the Med, for a 20 year old group of boats between 10-14 meters I have found more shoestring monohull sailors than shoestring motor sailors. If the question is 10 year TCO for a common basket of activity then you are right. The costs are equivalent. My point is that the basket is different. 12 meter sailboats in the Med regularly cruise from Alicante to Hydra. 12 meter trawlers rarely do. The fuel cost is prohibitive in that single year of a theoretical 10 year TCO.I think in the US it's the opposite but I'm not sure.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by paul.devalier

And I add three real world comparisons.
My neighbour and I both go to Elba. I have a volvo penta d2-40. He has a MAN dual 600hp power plant. He arrives in about five hours and has spent 700-800 euro. He has also spent all 100% of the time on motor, somewhat uncomfortably but he gets there fast and then spends time at port or at anchor. His slip fees are the same as mine.
I get there in two days, if there is low wind and I follow coastal breezes and have to change tack it might take 3 days. Typically for a fixed destination will push me to use my motor : often as an accelerator with sails up - if the point of sale allows.
I will spend for Elba about 4 hours motor in the summer.
His cost last month was 730 euros (real world figure).
My cost was 18 euros for fuel. Depending on your reasoning you may also want to add a slip fee overnight at Pisa for 100 euros.

You can see it as a cost if the point is just to get there. Or you can see it as a journey cost, touring Pisa and watching the lovely coast.

My other neighbour has a 12 meter Vauquiez sailboat. He spent 30 minutes on motor max (exiting the port and dropping anchor) his cost was 8 euros and he crossed in 12 hours straight south dawn to dusk.

Three different styles. Three different paths. Very different costs for one of them.

When I was young and broke I made similar comparisons - I had little choice but to find nobility in being broke.

If it's so cheap to sail, why go so slow? An AC40 uses no fuel but does 40+ knots. Of course, it costs $3-million (USD) to achieve those speeds (and likely $250k-$500k per year to campaign it), but in your math, those costs don't matter. Only diesel burn does.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Open-d

Ocean crossing and med-cruising. The Hattaras LRC series appear to all-DD powered.

I haven't looked to see if Hatt LRC tankage and ocean routing can co-exist.

I know that we (2x900 MANs) can slow down and achieve up to around 2 NMPG, though, and maybe some of the LRCs/DDs could be similar.

Stabilization would probably be important, though, and I suspect you might have to look a long time to find an LRC that already has stabilizers... so adding those might have to be part of the plan.

Might be more comfortable just shipping a boat to the Med for cruising there... or buying a boat already in the Med, cruising, selling, buying the next boat wherever, cruising, etc.

-Chris

[paul.devalier]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

When I was young and broke I made similar comparisons - I had little choice but to find nobility in being broke.

If it's so cheap to sail, why go so slow? An AC40 uses no fuel but does 40+ knots. Of course, it costs $3-million (USD) to achieve those speeds (and likely $250k-$500k per year to campaign it), but in your math, those costs don't matter. Only diesel burn does.

I'm old and solvent, thankfully but I definitely don't consider diesel the only cost on my boat. I'm all too familiar with the costs of rigging, keel bolt, lines and sails. I was very interested in buying a trawler both for its conveniences and maintenance costs. TCO is equivalent. But my point, to answer the OP, is that while TCO is equivalent over 10 years, it has been my experience that the communities and lifestyles and DIY culture of Mediterranean 20 year old(boats not people) 10-14 meter length owners are very different. This is why I exclude the types of boats you mention. Those people are in a different category. Another neighbour further down the dock has a 3 million euro boat. It never leaves the dock except for two weeks per year in July and two weeks per year in the winter for dry dock maintenance and polishing. I have yet to meet anyone who crosses the med in a motorboat. But half the people I have met in 12 meter sailboats have done lengthy navigation in the med in what is a very common motor and sailing class - the 10-14 meter EC class A vessel.
It's something to keep in mind for the OP because if they intend to go round the med from one port to the other or to criss cross it on day or multi day crossings then the price of fuel, at 7 dollars per gallon and at 0.5 to 1.5 gallons per nautical mile is a major consideration.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ranger58sb

I haven't looked to see if Hatt LRC tankage and ocean routing can co-exist.
I know that we (2x900 MANs) can slow down and achieve up to around 2 NMPG, though, and maybe some of the LRCs/DDs could be similar...

According to Steve & Debbie, aboard MV “WhoCares”:
➥ https://mvwhocares.com/about-our-boa...range-cruiser/

"... With 112-hp GM diesels, and 1,390 Gallon fuel capacity, the Hatteras 48 LRC will cruise at her 8.8 knot hull speed, burning only 9 gph [1359 mi range].
At a 7-knot cruising speed, the range exceeds 2,000 miles ..."

[sailorboy1]

Back when I was cruising I used to say that "I used to be a sailor, but now I am a cruiser."

Either you understand or you don't.

[emilecantin]

From an energy-efficiency standpoint, a sailboat is a pretty good powerboat! Sailboat hulls are designed to be driven under sail, so they have efficient hydrodynamic shapes that don't take much power to get moving. This makes them very fuel-efficient; just take a look at the installed HP / displacement ratio for trawlers vs sailboats if you don't believe me. By experience, cruising long distances (Qc-Bahamas and back) and also motoring much of these distances, diesel budget was way below the gas budget for my car.


Also, I haven't been on many powerboats, but the ones I've seen at anchor seemed to roll much more than sailboats due to the lack of inertia from the keel & mast.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by emilecantin

From an energy-efficiency standpoint, a sailboat is a pretty good powerboat! ...
... Also, I haven't been on many powerboats, but the ones I've seen at anchor seemed to roll much more than sailboats due to the lack of inertia from the keel & mast.

Indeed.
That's the approach Robert Beebe took, with his "Passagemaker" designs.
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3920711

[koyote]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

When I was young and broke I made similar comparisons - I had little choice but to find nobility in being broke.

If it's so cheap to sail, why go so slow? An AC40 uses no fuel but does 40+ knots. Of course, it costs $3-million (USD) to achieve those speeds (and likely $250k-$500k per year to campaign it), but in your math, those costs don't matter. Only diesel burn does.

I think that's unfair and disingenuous. You make an IF/THEN statement based on a 3 million dollar race boat, with some non-specific statement of negative value to going slow.

Are you going to now compare this to the Spirit of Qatar?

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
That's the approach Robert Beebe took, with his "Passagemaker" designs.
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3920711

Silly boy - you should know that sailors need to compare themselves to ridiculously powered motoryachts (preferably Italian) burning dozens of gallons per hour to justify their choice of boat. Comparing to a fuel efficient, ocean capable trawler does not advance their narrative. Don't hold your breath....but thanks for the reference. I buddy-cruised for a while with a couple who own a Beebe 50-footer. He's on this forum - maybe he'll chime in.

[koyote]

I've spent a lot of time what-if-ing being able to afford a 38 foot diesel duck, and even there, the trawlers aren't really *that* to close equivalent (fuzzy) sailboats.

My neighbor's tricabin is really nice and I love that single screw lehman- but he's still burning 4 to 5x as much fuel as a tartan 34.

He's just not burning TWENTY times as much.

again- if I could currently afford the up front cost, I'd do it. Even though engine repairs can be a lot bigger hit to the cash flow than rigging repairs. Not in a hurry and if I have to wait a month to get a new part, I won't miss a deadline.

but there really AREN'T a lot of 27-34 foot trawlers that are going to give you that 5-6 knots per gallon burn rate. You can make a realistic comparison to the occasional unicorn trawler but- while 80% of cheap 30 foot sailboats are going to be low fuel, 95% of 30 foot "trawlers" are not Julian Adderly (and I'm not aware of anyone building a 34 foot duck at all) -



I'm tempted at times to pilot house the tartan and chop the mast to 32 feet air draft and make a motor sail assist. Wrong boat (interior layout) and wrong engine (designed mounting) but still pretty tempting with the board up.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by koyote

I've spent a lot of time what-if-ing being able to afford a 38 foot diesel duck, and even there, the trawlers aren't really *that* to close equivalent (fuzzy) sailboats.

My neighbor's tricabin is really nice and I love that single screw lehman- but he's still burning 4 to 5x as much fuel as a tartan 34.

He's just not burning TWENTY times as much.

again- if I could currently afford the up front cost, I'd do it. Even though engine repairs can be a lot bigger hit to the cash flow than rigging repairs. Not in a hurry and if I have to wait a month to get a new part, I won't miss a deadline.

but there really AREN'T a lot of 27-34 foot trawlers that are going to give you that 5-6 knots per gallon burn rate. You can make a realistic comparison to the occasional unicorn trawler but- while 80% of cheap 30 foot sailboats are going to be low fuel, 95% of 30 foot "trawlers" are not Julian Adderly (and I'm not aware of anyone building a 34 foot duck at all) -



I'm tempted at times to pilot house the tartan and chop the mast to 32 feet air draft and make a motor sail assist. Wrong boat (interior layout) and wrong engine (designed mounting) but still pretty tempting with the board up.

A displacement speed boat will burn roughly the same amount of fuel at a given speed whether a sailboat hull or a powerboat hull. I mentioned a sistership to my boat went from California to Hawaii. It averaged 6.2 kts (1.0 S/L) and burned 0.9 gph.

Here are several recent for-sale listings on TrawlerForum, all of which roughly meet the description of a 27-34 foot trawler (okay, one is a 36-footer). To my eyes, the first one - Sundowner 30 for $79k seems like a nicely upgraded boat and a good value - likely burns a bit over 1 gph at 6.5 kts, so around 5-6 nm/gal efficiency. The Camano ($129k) is a very popular boat and calls a premium price. The Ranger 31 is a 2017 and priced accordingly ($309k).

https://www.trawlerforum.com/threads...2%80%99.72815/

https://www.trawlerforum.com/threads...-35-000.72302/

https://www.trawlerforum.com/threads...c.72648/unread

https://www.trawlerforum.com/threads...l.68970/unread

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...8899472258208/

[koyote]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Here are several recent for-sale listings on TrawlerForum, all of which roughly meet the description of a 27-34 foot trawler (okay, one is a 36-footer).

Any of these would be nice- although if I had that sort of money or loan capacity I'd probably get the duck for sale in San Diego right now (or the one in Chicago if I could insure a planked hull, lol)

But we're nowhere near those $ numbers, and won't likely be due to circumstances.

Due to the market- and this is just the market right now- I can go get a ..whatever, hunter 36 for $10k and run it up and down the PNW for the next 5 years with far less than $20k of necessary parts.

This is a major factor- right now I can get a really nice beta 30 (which is going to drive that 36 foot sailboats JUST FINE, no matter how much more efficient the 115 horse on the sundowner is. - attached to a working system sailboat hull, for $9500 . Sorta have what I have available sunk into my tartan, but that's the numbers.

I understand that TCO - purchase cost over ten years is assumed to be equivalent. (we're assuming no increased maintenance due to complexity. but I'm not likely to replace a $7000 bow thruster anyway, even if it is only once every ten years, etc) - it's an assumption and that's great.

but TCO for me MUST include purchase price and my rather bohemian gulf war crap capabilities.

no one is going to make a $80k sundowner work for me. No sour grapes- I know the fuel efficiency losses would be outweighed in large part by the lack of messing with rigging. I get that. (there's a sundowner in FL for $50k asking, and I can't go buy that right now, either)

the argument appears to be, now, that trawlers are JUST AS fuel economic under power as sailboats. and that's a shift I'm not willing to just accept as automatic. maybe for a super fat hunter passage, but certainly not for a r/c like the tartan.