Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A lot of emotion and moral indignation here. But have you run the numbers?

I'm pretty sure you haven't, judging by the morally superior tone.

Well, I did. Let's take a 3000 mile cruise. That's a really big cruise, I suppose less than 1% of cruisers do this many miles in a season.

There is data that people use about 1 to 1.3 liters/nm on average in the FPB 64, incidentally about 1/3 of the fuel consumption of similar Nordhavns. That includes generator use.

So over six months, say -- that would be 3000 to 4000 liters, or 500 to 700 liters of diesel fuel per month.

Is that "100's of people's total annual footprint", or did you just make that up? I was pretty sure it's the latter, so I ran the numbers myself.

700 liters of diesel fuel will produce 1.9 tonnes of CO2. The lifestyle of the average American produces about 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per person per month. For a household consisting of two retired people, that's 3.2 tonnes per household per month. So 1.9 tonnes of CO2 per month from one of Dashew's boats is "100's of people's total annual footprint"? Pure made-up-on-the-spot nonsense. A couple doing a long and long distance cruise on an FPB 64 will produce more carbon than just from burning diesel fuel -- they will be plugged into shore power sometimes, might fly someplace -- but few of them will be producing more than the average American household, much less 100's of times as much. Sitting at home -- as you sanctimoniously advise them to do -- will likely produce just as much carbon.

Dashew's extremely efficient power boats are about 3 times as efficient as large trawlers like Nordhavns. To the extent that people switch to them from Nordhavns, then the result is a significant reduction in carbon emissions. Since the great majority of sailboat cruisers motor more than 50% of the time, and since a large sailboat under power will consume similar amounts of fuel to Dashew's power boats, switching from a large sailboat to a FPB 64 will also not have much of an effect on anyone's carbon emissions.

Chill out. Yes, I've done the numbers. I'll be brief:

- all of the trawlers have to go too. Per the prior message, so do superyachts. It will happen - they will go. The question is whether we do it in time.
- No Dockout, it doesn't make sense to compare the fuel on the trip with daily living burn because their transport is additional to the burn. If you think their daily living is somehow not additional to the travel mileage burn, I think you're confused.
- You're seriously using American CO2 figures as a global population average?
- Read the IPCC report. Work out how much we can afford to burn before you have climate refugees at your dock. Then divide it by 6b people. Then tell me how many people's share is used up in one 3000nm passage.
- Presumably you can work out the logical fallacies involved in persuading yourself that building and selling new long distance motorboats (not to mention persuading people they should convert from sail power) is reducing emissions.

Anyway, think what you want. I didn't expect it to be controversial to point out how insane it is to promote ocean travel by motor, so didn't plan on getting into a lengthy debate. You think these boats are fine, but you also think sundeers sail upwind like a racing swan. I'll leave you to all that, and good luck with it.

But do let me know when you've read the IPCC report and worked out what the Caribbean will be like to sail in 50 years from now. If you're not afraid when you've finished reading it, then you're an idiot.

[250224]

Funnily enough, Steve was quite aware of what they were doing:

"There was a very narrow range of true wind angle that Linda had steer to enable me to drop the main in such a way as to keep the broken boom and associated reef lines on deck, but not put the jagged swinging section of boom through the dog house window. The peaceful surfing that followed as we ran down the big swells was what us got thinking the unthinkable… a F_____G powerboat.If that hurricane hadn’t spun up, and had a large sea bird not rotated our carbon fiber mast head wind instrument, the cause of the jibe that broke the boom, we’d probably still be sailing."

A ****ing powerboat.

No need to downplay the ecological consequences or get aggressive. Picture yourself on this boat before a melting iceberg. And it's gone. Slowly.

It's funny that even some small boat owners defend such 12000 liter/tank pollutors. Wonder if they compensated (e.g. https://www.atmosfair.de/en/) their diesel miles? Forgive me for being pessimistic...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I had not said anybody what they should do. I said that in my opinion someone that crosses the Atlantic burning 10 000 liters of fuel on relatively small a private boat is doing the wrong thing.

Not that he has not the right to do that but I consider that to be antisocial in a way that disproportionately contributes to pollution, that is a business that concerns us all.

And of course the average cruiser don't waste 10 000 liters crossing the Atlantic but a very tiny fraction of that.

Most of Dashew's power boats sold are the FPB 64's, which use 3 times less fuel than Wind Horse.

But even Wind Horse -- why do you single out someone burning 10 tonnes of diesel for something like this? How many times in a lifetime does a person make such a crossing? 10 tonnes of diesel fuel amounts to carbon from the average American household of just a few months. A 777 flying from New York to Paris uses about 50 tonnes of fuel. A guess a single transatlantic flight uses more fuel than all of the Dashew powerboat Atlantic crossings ever made put together. This is a ridiculously selective target for moral outrage.

And why is it "wasting" fuel? Compared to what? All use of diesel fuel is "wasting" it; human life is not necessary.

[Franziska]

You are targeting a minuscule group of people which have already conscious thoughts of how to keep their footprint low, to solve a huge issue on a global scale.

Sorry but I think you should really approach areas which would really make a difference before you do that.

Here are some ideas for areas where you could practice making big changes:

Like air conditioning in the US, like air traffic, like t-shirts beeing shipped around half the globe for cents....

Oh, and on the way install some climate sensitivity into that guy wearing a red tie all the time.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Chill out. Yes, I've done the numbers. I'll be brief:

- all of the trawlers have to go too. Per the prior message, so do superyachts. It will happen - they will go. The question is whether we do it in time.
- No Dockout, it doesn't make sense to compare the fuel on the trip with daily living burn because their transport is additional to the burn. If you think their daily living is somehow not additional to the travel mileage burn, I think you're confused.
- You're seriously using American CO2 figures as a global population average?
- Read the IPCC report. Work out how much we can afford to burn before you have climate refugees at your dock. Then divide it by 6b people. Then tell me how many people's share is used up in one 3000nm passage.
- Presumably you can work out the logical fallacies involved in persuading yourself that building and selling new long distance motorboats (not to mention persuading people they should convert from sail power) is reducing emissions.

Anyway, think what you want. I didn't expect it to be controversial to point out how insane it is to promote ocean travel by motor, so didn't plan on getting into a lengthy debate. You think these boats are fine, but you also think sundeers sail upwind like a racing swan. I'll leave you to all that, and good luck with it.

But do let me know when you've read the IPCC report and worked out what the Caribbean will be like to sail in 50 years from now. If you're not afraid when you've finished reading it, then you're an idiot.

I wasn't using the fuel consumption on a trip, but on a cruise. 6 months and 3 000 miles. Living on board, even a nice power boat like and FPB, actually uses a lot less energy than living in a big house in the suburbs. Dashew's boats have a ton of solar energy and so diesel for main and generator will be the great majority of energy used.

I'm using the American household averages, because we're talking about American cruisers. In fact, the applicable standard is probably upper middle class Americans living in the suburbs of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, who emit around 100 tonnes a year. If using a Dashew boat doesn't make a big difference compared to what the owners would otherwise be emitting sitting at home, then it is silliness to suggest that they sit at home rather than have the trip of a lifetime. And that is what it amounts to.

If the problem is American average carbon emissions -- then Dashew is the wrong target, a ridiculously selective one. You need to take on the whole of U.S. society. If the point is reading the IPCC report and the overall global problem, then this is posted in the wrong forum. Dashew is not responsible for global warming.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Most of Dashew's power boats sold are the FPB 64's, which use 3 times less fuel than Wind Horse.

But even Wind Horse -- why do you single out someone burning 10 tonnes of diesel for something like this? How many times in a lifetime does a person make such a crossing? 10 tonnes of diesel fuel amounts to carbon from the average American household of just a few months. A 777 flying from New York to Paris uses about 50 tonnes of fuel. A guess a single transatlantic flight uses more fuel than all of the Dashew powerboat Atlantic crossings ever made put together. This is a ridiculously selective target for moral outrage.

And why is it "wasting" fuel? Compared to what? All use of diesel fuel is "wasting" it; human life is not necessary.

Why single these boats out? Because this is a thread about the Dashews.

Of course there are other terrible levels of consumption. They need to be dealt with, but this diversion was about the Dashew model of urging the move to motoring long distances. That you've fallen for a bunch of marketing patter, or can point to boats that burn more, doesn't change the wrongness of travelling that way, or the immorality of promoting harm for profit. The harm might be easier to ignore, or harder to imagine, than some analogies (selling tobacco, drugs, guns), but it's real harm.

I know a lot of people here live a comfortable life and enjoy posting incessantly about boat issues without questioning these things, and certainly without confronting their own footprint, but it's the elephant in the room for cruising, and it's just dangerous that somebody ill informed would google these boats and get the impression that they are environmentally friendly.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I wasn't using the fuel consumption on a trip, but on a cruise. 6 months and 3 000 miles. Living on board, even a nice power boat like and FPB, actually uses a lot less energy than living in a big house in the suburbs. Dashew's boats have a ton of solar energy and so diesel for main and generator will be the great majority of energy used.

I'm using the American household averages, because we're talking about American cruisers. In fact, the applicable standard is probably upper middle class Americans living in the suburbs of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, who emit around 100 tonnes a year. If using a Dashew boat doesn't make a big difference compared to what the owners would otherwise be emitting sitting at home, then it is silliness to suggest that they sit at home rather than have the trip of a lifetime. And that is what it amounts to.

If the problem is American average carbon emissions -- then Dashew is the wrong target, a ridiculously selective one. You need to take on the whole of U.S. society. If the point is reading the IPCC report and the overall global problem, then this is posted in the wrong forum. Dashew is not responsible for global warming.

We all are responsible, dock. Me, you and them. I don't get to disclaim impact because somebody burns even more, and neither do they.

Let me know when you've read the report and done the maths, and which tropical cruising grounds will still be good in 50 years at our current burn.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Franziska

...
Especially as they designed specifically for low fuel consumption.
Any big planing production power yacht uses the same amount of fuel which the Dashews use to do crossings, in a weekend blasting along at 25kn not giving it a single thought.
Those are the guys you need to adress in my eyes.

Yes except that most power yacht are used for short coastal trips, few are designed specifically for long range cruising.

Some years ago a Dashew motorboat crossed the Atlantic on the ARC partially for publicitary reasons to show that it was faster than sailboats. The 85ft motorboat had 2 150hp engines that consumed about 30l/ hour each, at cruising speed.

They crossed the Atantic, from Canary to the caribbean in 245 hours. That gives a consumption of about 14 700 liters.

You may find that it is very little for a motor yacht but the reality is that not many motor yachts cross the Atantic and regarding a sailing boat, even one with the same interior size, the difference is huge.

and in what regards size I am talking about volume because the FPB is very narrow the interior space is equivalent of the one of a much smaller boat. Modern sailing boats between 50 and 60ft averaged that year about 35/40 liter engine consumption on sailboats with a single engine and a smaller power.

I would say that the average consumption on those boats was about 350/400 liters and that is about 30 to 40 times less than the motorboat.

Meaning that the pollution caused by the FPB is equivalent to the one of 30 to 40 sailing yachts with about the same interior space.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Thanks for posting the photos. What beautiful boats!! Wow. A power boat is not for me, because I have a passion for sailing, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a magnificently designed power boat like this.

[Franziska]

So whats your point polux?

Basically we agree that the FBP uses a lot less than most other power yachts of similar or smaller 40-50ft size. No?

So for this the Dashews get pounded here?

I probably will forever fail to understand that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Why single these boats out? Because this is a thread about the Dashews.

Of course there are other terrible levels of consumption. They need to be dealt with, but this diversion was about the Dashew model of urging the move to motoring long distances. That you've fallen for a bunch of marketing patter, or can point to boats that burn more, doesn't change the wrongness of travelling that way, or the immorality of promoting harm for profit. The harm might be easier to ignore, or harder to imagine, than some analogies (selling tobacco, drugs, guns), but it's real harm.

I know a lot of people here live a comfortable life and enjoy posting incessantly about boat issues without questioning these things, and certainly without confronting their own footprint, but it's the elephant in the room for cruising, and it's just dangerous that somebody ill informed would google these boats and get the impression that they are environmentally friendly.

OK, fine. Your agenda is clear. But you will find a much more target-rich environment here: Nordhavn - Trawler Forum. People certainly accounting for orders of magnitude more incremental carbon emissions than FPB cruisers.

[Franziska]

So I wonder if new user (13posts so far) Bigmarv can enlighten us on his personal cruising experiences.
Especially what boats he uses and his CO2 conscious lifestyle in general.

Dont feed the trolls I guess. I should remind myself not to fall for them.

[leftbrainstuff]

Correcting thread drift...

The Dashews have a ton of knowledge, that they have shared freely through their books.

They also have a ton of cruising, design, build and marketing experience with sail and power boats.

I'd call that a successful career. Thanks and best wishes in retirement. They can look back on their achievements with pride.

[Franziska]

Thanks!

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Franziska

So I wonder if new user (13posts so far) Bigmarv can enlighten us on his personal cruising experiences.
Especially what boats he uses and his CO2 conscious lifestyle in general.

Dont feed the trolls I guess. I should remind myself not to fall for them.

Sure. Sailed plenty miles coastal and offshore. Try to minimise engine coastally. At sea more so. Last passage 5000nm engine time anchor to anchor 1.5 hours. Use public transport, bicycle and legs. minimise flying, no aircon, minimise meat and dairy.

Sailed enough to know that a sundeer ain't an upwind boat, that outside a weird little bubble on the net most people think dashew boats are ugly, and that in many ports in the world you're starting on the back foot if you turn up in one of those big motorboats.