Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Polux

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.

It has the same grumpy negative connotations in the UK.

[Bigmarv]

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.

Poor Polux. It's me who said good riddance. English is my first language. I know exactly what it means. I am glad that they are not designing any more of their latest boats. Of that activity we are rid, and the riddance is good.

Pretty weird to be offended by that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Poor Polux. It's me who said good riddance. English is my first language. I know exactly what it means. I am glad that they are not designing any more of their latest boats. Of that activity we are rid, and the riddance is good.

Pretty weird to be offended by that.

People are not offended by that. They are disgusted. There's a big difference.

The Dashews have given all of us something nice. Many of us have their excellent books, which they have been giving away for free. Some of us finally figured out weather from their excellent volume about that. We will miss them, and you barge into their retirement party (as it were) and make a nasty remark like "good riddance", in order to preach to us about carbon emissions.

Is that clear now? There is a time and place for everything. We're going to have a word with your mother about your upbringing.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

Pete, that was not to do with costs but with pollution, a not necessary one since it has to do with pleasure cruising.

Cost relate to resources, and that relates to pollution. Sails are made of fossil fuels too, and producing aluminium costs a lot of energy. I would like to see a total lifetime energy balance of sail versus motor.

It's the same with cars. If you take the whole life cycle in to account a Tesla is not as good for the environment as a VW Polo...

The Dashews' realised that most of the time on board is spend while anchored somewhere nice. They did put a lot in to being very frugal and efficient with energy during these periods.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Poor Polux. It's me who said good riddance. English is my first language. I know exactly what it means. I am glad that they are not designing any more of their latest boats. Of that activity we are rid, and the riddance is good.

Sure, much better if the people that bought FPB go back to buying Nordhavn's, right?

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

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've actually read a lot of the IPCC reports. The real reports, not the "summary for policy makers" that everybody reads, and which is a political document, not a scientific one.

According to the IPCC the Caribbean will in 50 years time in all likelihood be pretty much the same as now...

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

I've actually read a lot of the IPCC reports. The real reports, not the "summary for policy makers" that everybody reads, and which is a political document, not a scientific one.

According to the IPCC the Caribbean will in 50 years time in all likelihood be pretty much the same as now...

Good for you for reading it, but I think perhaps you need to read it more carefully.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People are not offended by that. They are disgusted. There's a big difference.

The Dashews have given all of us something nice. Many of us have their excellent books, which they have been giving away for free. Some of us finally figured out weather from their excellent volume about that. We will miss them, and you barge into their retirement party (as it were) and make a nasty remark like "good riddance", in order to preach to us about carbon emissions.

Is that clear now? There is a time and place for everything. We're going to have a word with your mother about your upbringing.

It's early days, but I'm going to call it now that my mother and you won't get along.

If you're "disgusted" by somebody criticizing a boat design on a boating site I can see the problem. I can see why you're defensive though - when you sail on Dashew boats they fly, matching Swan 60s upwind! Silly Swan for thinking they needed double the draft of a Sundeer to go well upwind. Silly [every designer ever] for thinking that the Dashew below water sterns are draggy or for thinking tall rigs matter.

You must be a good sailor. Or maybe you just swallowed some marketing patter and the real world performance of their boats is pretty average without lots of diesel. Yes, yes, they reach at a clip, but what long thin boat doesn't? Sure, a bunch of you guys have read their books, but have some pride - can't you see there's salesmanship in there?

High fuel use aside, I've seen enough sluggish light and upwind sailing, and heard enough proper sailors, sailmakers and the like complain about their performance, to have some views about the quality of the designs and the disconnect between the marketing and the reality.

But fawn away, fill your boots.

[Pelagic]

Marv...for your first 17 post you have not made a very good impression.

A "Bigger" Marv would have realized by now that the Dashews are part of our Cruising fraternity.

We tend to view any sailor's announcement of a personal transition, with respect and support.
Your posts are those of a baiting Troll, dragging it's own bottom, which I sincerely hope you are not!
This thread is about the Dashews, not you.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Marv...for your first 17 post you have not made a very good impression.

A "Bigger" Marv would have realized by now that the Dashews are part of our Cruising fraternity.

We tend to view any sailor's announcement of a personal transition, with respect and support.
Your posts are those of a baiting Troll, dragging it's own bottom, which I sincerely hope you are not!
This thread is about the Dashews, not you.

Sweet, understood now. Didn't realise so many of you knew them and assumed a discussion about actual design issues was acceptable. I'll move on.

[Snowpetrel]

Sad news, these two redefined the possibilities of a cruising sailboat, AND then a cruising motorboat. I admired the emphasis on efficiency and the analytical way they approached every element of cruising. For many years I dismissed their POV as being only for the very rich, but I've realised that much of their advice also applies to any sailor, amd in no way do they seem shun smaller more modest boats. I am proud to have the full collection of their books.

I hope future motorboat design will follow their lead and come up with more fuel efficient shapes like the FPV designs, rather than grossly inefficient boats like the fat and heavy trawler yachts or even worse the semiplaning gin palace style superyachts that even at full throttle look like they are ducks that can't quite get airborne, dragging a massive wave behind them.

It's a shame they never turned their genius to smaller boats, but much of the philosophy has trickled down nonetheless.

[Franziska]

Lower rigs mean also keels can be shorter.
Good on a cruising boat.

Lower rigs also lower the center of effort which increases stability.
Good on a cruising boat.

Slender vessel can more easily be driven through waves.
Good on a cruising boat.

Swans are pretty, but they use an aweful lot of oil based substances for production.
The Dashew boats do not.

The design of the typical Swan is not prioritized towards cruising with a very small crew.
The Dashew boats are.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Good for you for reading it, but I think perhaps you need to read it more carefully.

But I do. There is nothing there to justify a "the world is going under" attitude. Yes we are going to have problems, and we will have to adapt.
But having problems and adapting to them is pretty much business as usual for humans.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Ivanvet

After so many years of designing beautiful boats, the Dashews are retiring.

https://www.setsail.com/evaluating-n...-fpb-market-2/

I.

Thanks for posting this Ivanvet.

Reading between the lines in Steve's explanation, I can see that the Business stress of building larger and larger FPB's, for wealthier and more demanding clients, was compromising his own design philosophy and ethics.

I admire that he chose to close down, rather than compromise and at the same time, warn customers about pretenders

Live, Laugh and Love!....
Steve and Linda..... . .
You have stood a good Watch!

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

It's a shame they never turned their genius to smaller boats, but much of the philosophy has trickled down nonetheless.

There are other designers for that.

An interesting naval architect is JP Brouns. He has several designs for small economical motor boats, and motor sailors. I'm very tempted by them (imaging something that would be suitable both for the Adriatic Islands and the French Canals...)

bateau de voyage - tour du monde - Architecture Navale Jean-Pierre Brouns

That is JP Brouns' own boat:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-W...ion_Page_2.jpg