Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

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.

Have you actually sailed a Sundeer? I have done a good few miles in them. I'll borrow one and race you sometime They are wicked fast over a wide range of conditions and very good upwind. Maybe 0.1% of cruising boats could keep up. But yes, I do agree that they are ugly, and that is one reason why I don't own one.

You "minimize meat and dairy"; I don't eat any at all -- I'm full vegan. But if I choose to burn some diesel fuel for some once in a lifetime adventure, I'm not going to ask your permission . Nor, I suppose, will any FPB owners.

[Jim Cate]

For me, Dashew's big contribution was his management of all the systems in his sailing boats and the integration of them into a viable cruising design. As an active cruiser himself, he understood that being able to access and service all the parts of a complex vessel was important, and he went a long way to achieve that. The results were successful,but to my eye not attractive. Further there are surely divergent views of the resultant sailing performance. DH and Jedi are very complementary about the way some of his designs perform, but I've spoken with both owners and delivery crews who disagree. I have no personal experience and no opinion, but the proliferation of his boats suggests that they have a place in the cruising world

But to condemn the Dashews because they promoted big powerboats at the end of their careers is a pretty silly act. No large pleasure boat, sail or power or solar electric or whatever is environmentally friendly or socially necessary. They all have an impact and none are needed to support life... they are a luxury, and such things have a price, one which may lead to a disastrous future for us all. An ugly fact, but hardly a reason to vilify Steve and Linda who added valuable ideas to the activities which we (selfishly) enjoy. If one needs targets for enviro/moral outrage, why not look at the folks whose life styles and affluence generate the demand for these wasteful vessels? Were there not such customers, there would be no such boats designed, built or cruised.

I wish them a happy and useful retirement... I wonder what they will do?

Jim

[Ivanvet]

Ok, let’s keep this conversation civil and treat each other with respect. At the end of the day this is only my second thread and I wouldn’t want to have it closed!!
I agree with the argument that crossing oceans in a pleasure motorboat shouldn’t be celebrated due to the environmental impact. As much as I see these boats as beautiful pieces of engineering, even if I wanted to spend this amount of money, this wouldn’t be my choice of boat. First, because I’m a passionate sailor, and second, because I wouldn’t sleep at night knowing the carbon footprint of these boats.
Now, that aside, the amount of information that has come from the Dashews shouldn’t be undermined. They are, were, and will be cruisers, and I wish them the best during their retirement. After all, the last time I checked, the name of this forum had the word ‘cruisers’ in it, regardless of being a motorboat or a sailboat (monohull or multihull, old style or European style… you get the point, right?)


Ivan

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Wckoek

I worked out that under 20 tonnes, say 16-18 tonnes, a displacement powerboat will be cheaper than sailboat

If this is true, than most cruisers are wasting their money on sails.

unless you sail more than 5,000 nautical miles per year,

What does yearly mileage have to do with the calculation? The sails degrade based on UV exposure, they are under cover when not used. The fuel and other costs depend mostly on us. I don't understand how you come up with 5000 miles per year figure.

I based this calculation on cheap sails from China and Thailand not accounting for lines, mast and other consumable and fuel that sailboat also uses, even in countries where fuel are more expensive that can be 3,000 nautical miles per year or so to break the point, in my country where fuel cost $2 per gallion, it needs about 8,000 miles per year to better fuel.

You should show your calculations. It would be interesting to work out. Maybe everyone can switch to powerboats and save money.

You must include the cost of the engine and propeller etc.. in the calculations, not only fuel cost, as you should include the cost of mast+rigging, not only sail cost.

Also fuel cost is more manageable, when fuel are expensive you can just cruise or use it less, but you still have to fork out thousands for sail one shot regardless when it has to be replaced.

Not sure how you can use less, go slower? Besides this, there is the inconvenience of needing to refuel. I never paid more than $300 for a sail, and that was a new mainsail.

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

Unless you are aboard an all wood boat with no engine, linen or cotton sails and all hemp rigging and wearing only leather and cotton and wool clothing and shoes, you are just like them. They just draw their line in a different place than you and aren't hypocrites about it.

Yes, but using leather wool and cotton has environmental cost. Clearly drawing the line in a different place.

The boat motoring across the ocean is drawing the line above 99% of everyone else.

Originally Posted by skipmac

BUT, be careful casting the first stone here. Do you live in a house with asphalt shingles, is it painted? Do you drive a car? Obviously you use a computer. You certainly wear clothes, eat food (do you eat exclusively organic so using no chemical fertilizer, no pesticides). Do you own a sailboat? Use bottom paint? Use sails made from synthetic fibers?

All of these and more use oil as the starting point to make them (you know most plastics, resins, paints, etc are made from petroleum derivatives) or to produce the energy required to make them or both. Living on this planet in this modern society uses resources and generates pollution and garbage.

Everyone on the earth creates some form of waste.

It is good to know that this fact justifies anyone's right to motor across the ocean.

In the overall scheme of things the contributions from the Dashews' power boats is extremely minor, to the point of insignificant.

Yes, the private jets are also insignificant.

Also insignificant is someone in indonesia slash and burn to grow something.

It's insignificant to drive a car 50 miles a day.

Everything is insignificant.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Polux

What the hell is a sailing career in what regards cruising?

Hi Policy,
I think that "Anything" you do that makes you a sustainable amount of money, can be called a "career'
If it happens to be something you just love to do and would actually do it for free....then that is what I would ultimately call....."A successful career"

Strange that this thread became so aggressive and judgemental of their career. They contributed a lot to making sailing less mysterious for dreamers and highlighted many elements for discussion.

That they fashioned a successful career from a huge following should be celebrated not belittled.

That is just mean spirited!

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

700 liters of diesel fuel will produce 1.9 tonnes of CO2.

This is how much CO2 it produces out the exhaust of the engine, not the total amount.

The refining process of producing diesel fuel from crude oil is not very efficient. It takes energy to transport the crude oil, as well as the diesel fuel. More carbon is emited here. Then there is infrastructure as well to support all of this which consumes more. So burning diesel fuel of 700 liters will produce closer to 5 tonnes of CO2.

The 1.6 ton of CO2 per month figure is a sum of all kinds of energy from electricity, to transportation, as well as food that we eat. The people in the boat also are eating food, and presumably also use other services, so this is additional CO2.

So in fact, they will be consuming several times more than the average american.

The lifestyle of the average American produces about 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per person

Comparing to the average American is a mistake. The "average" americans produces something like 5-6x more CO2 than the "average" person on the planet.

I produce about 1.6 tonnes of CO2 each year (not month). It's difficult to live in America without land, and not do this, as I have to eat, but I can improve.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chris95040

I wonder if someone can fix the thread title so we don't look like a bunch of ignoramuses.

The Dashews .???
Neve.r heard of them..


Just kidding Jedi..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

I suppose so in a military kind of way:




it does not fit my style however. I guess if I would have a motor boat I would like something equally efficient, or even more, but not military type, something like this:





Of course both cost millions and waste tens of thousand in fuel and even if I was a millionaire I would not want any of those things. Power boats just don't do my style.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Policy,
I think that "Anything" you do that makes you a sustainable amount of money, can be called a "career'
If it happens to be something you just love to do and would actually do it for free....then that is what I would ultimately call....."A successful career"

Strange that this thread became so aggressive and judgemental of their career. They contributed a lot to making sailing less mysterious for dreamers and highlighted many elements for discussion.

That they fashioned a successful career from a huge following should be celebrated not belittled.

That is just mean spirited!

I don't understand your point. First there are no sailing cruising careers except doing charter. That was what I pointed out.

They had a sailing careers, first with sailing boats than with motorboats, building both types and making and selling books.

They are not retiring from cruising they may even return to sailing THEY RETIRED FROM MAKING LONG RANGE MOTORBOATS. It is regarding that I was talking about and that is the subject of this thread, not about their live or sailing career.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If one needs targets for enviro/moral outrage, why not look at the folks whose life styles and affluence generate the demand for these wasteful vessels? Were there not such customers, there would be no such boats designed, built or cruised.

I wish them a happy and useful retirement... I wonder what they will do?

Nice thoughts in your long post, thanks, as always.

Perhaps some of this thread/ discussion was a combination of dancing on the head of a pin while at the same time employing false equivalencies.

How many times have we read folks who have "urged" us to go sail in the Med? Our Oyster friend comes to mind... As DH said how much fuel is used to get there by plane? OK, OK, I'm guilty --- I actually FLEW to Iran where I lived from 75-78 and then visited Europe, gasp!!!, at least a dozen times when I lived all the way in San Francisco in the 80s & 90s. By plane.

Our civilization has moved from when I was a kid (born in 1945) in a WALK TO SCHOOL society to one where if the damn mother doesn't take a bloody gas guzzling BMW SUV (instead of a Prius) the five blocks to drop her spawn off at school every morning and pick 'em up every afternoon she is vilified as a bad mom because she's exposing her kids to the dangers of what could happen to them on the STREET. Oh, the horrors.

THOSE are the people who are really exceeding their carbon footprint. The layout of cities has changed remarkably in the past 70 years. It has changed the "base" of comparisons. It would be as foolish to say "We're all to blame because we use more fuel today than our parents did," as is it for a sailor to blame folks who motor as frugally as they can. At the same time, I agree that watching MBs blast around using more fuel in twenty minutes than I did motoring from SF to BC is disconcerting, too --- I usually watch 'em go by and count: "One gallon, two gallons, three gallons..." although it's litres where I live now. And you can't walk to school, it's too darn far away from home.

Should I feel "guilty" because my new cruising grounds are exponentially HUGE compared to what I now understand is the "postage size" SF Bay? And I can't actually sail as much here as I did there, 'cuz of that lack of wind thingie. I use two to three times as much fuel per three day outing because the closest place for me to drop an anchor here is two or three times as far away as my favorite anchorages were on SF Bay.

boatalexandria is one extreme. I applaud his commitment to sailing, and his trip through the C&D and Dismal Swamp canals was epic. It is unfortunate that he discounts the fact that his boat is a carbon-based vessel.

Steve & Linda employed thoughtful design refinements and improved efficiency of their vessels, both sail & power.

DH did a very good analysis of comparative fuel use.

Could one make the point that boaters use less fuel than the average soccer mom? Oh, someone already did.

I find it ironic that folks with English as a second language tend to try to teach us the meanings of certain phrases. But then again, I'm originally from NYC and English is not my first language either.

One of the reasons I enjoy sailing so much (even though I have to motor a lot more here) is it reminds me of my misspent yout, where I learned to sail on a lake at summer camp. My parents never had a car, and they never flew in an airplane. We took a subway to the train that took us to camp and a school bus that took us from the train to the camp.

But I'd bet that the amount of fuel needed to bring us a dozen eggs to the store that we have to drive to now far exceeds that when I was a kid and walked to the store with my Mom dragging the darned shopping cart.

Things change. Sure. But I'd guess that sailing is still one of the least impactful recreational sports around. Unless you live in the mountains, it takes lotsa fuel to go skiing, for one example. Lots of the skippers here were/are flying enthusiasts.

Point being that comparing apples & oranges, and then compounding it with name calling is just unnecessary.

Happy retirement to the Dashews. They did it the right way: they shared and contributed mightily to our knowledge base.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

I suppose so in a military kind of way:




it does not fit my style however. I guess if I would have a motor boat I would like something equally efficient, or even more, but not military type, something like this:





Of course both cost millions and waste tens of thousand in fuel and even if I was a millionaire I would not want any of those things. Power boats just don't do my style.

Polux my friend..you have very expensive tastes

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by skipmac

BUT, be careful casting the first stone here. Do you live in a house with asphalt shingles, is it painted? Do you drive a car? Obviously you use a computer. You certainly wear clothes, eat food (do you eat exclusively organic so using no chemical fertilizer, no pesticides). Do you own a sailboat? Use bottom paint? Use sails made from synthetic fibers?

All of these and more use oil as the starting point to make them (you know most plastics, resins, paints, etc are made from petroleum derivatives) or to produce the energy required to make them or both. Living on this planet in this modern society uses resources and generates pollution and garbage.
Everyone on the earth creates some form of waste.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It is good to know that this fact justifies anyone's right to motor across the ocean.

And you are putting words in my mouth that were never said, meant or even implied. My point I think was clear. Instead of selectively quoting my post why not include the first line as well. "I do not disagree that motoring uses fossil fuels, generates carbon, contributes to pollution and global climate changes and all the other issues."

Was pointing out that we all contribute to the state of the earth and anyone criticizing needs to look first at themselves. To quote a famous book, "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."

[john61ct]

I completely agree that the good riddance post was an abject failure in cross-language communications, very aggressive, doctrinaire and offensive, even if that was not the writer's intention.

I am willing to take him at his word that no offense was intended, but wanted to point out the failure in communication as an indicator for him to put some effort into using English with more tact.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by john61ct

I completely agree that the good riddance post was an abject failure in cross-language communications, very aggressive, doctrinaire and offensive, even if that was not the writer's intention.

I am willing to take him at his word that no offense was intended, but wanted to point out the failure in communication as an indicator for him to put some effort into using English with more tact.

English is not only American English, that poster is not American and for what I could understand, with the help of Ann, and from the definitions of that phrase on english dictionaries, that expression has a connotation much more negative on American english than on other english native languages.

[Pelagic]

https://goo.gl/images/GEWFyK