Terminology question

[BillKov]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Because what you don't burn in the Polar High calms will go to heat the boat.

Most cruisers at the 40 foot level and the "Bendytoy" type carry between 35 and 60 gallons of diesel, because they are rarely more than the 150-300 NM range from a diesel pump this gives them. Of course, many coastal/weekender cruisers will have difficulty burning one tank a season...I know I have trouble running 11 gallons in an Atomic 4.

By contrast, I am extending my fuel capacity to 140 gallons in three tanks: two 50 gallon keel tanks and a third, 40 gallon, post-filter-system "day" tank under the new engine, which itself will likely provide a range of approximately 1,100 NM (or halfway across the Atlantic going from St. John's to Bristol!) at a conservative 4.5-5 knots speed.

This reasoning is two-fold. On a trip from Panama to the Marquesas (just over 3,000 NM), it is typical to encounter a lot of calm air in the ITCZ. It is also desirable, once the diesel is on, to charge/make water/etc. esp. if a longish motor run is anticipated. So the extra capacity is desirable. Secondly, I would likely refuel in Venezuela, which diesel is 3 cents/litre at Caracas, and I would carry 12 x 5 gallon diesel cans on deck, perhaps half of which I would use during the nearly obligatory motoring phase of the negotiation of the Panama Canal.

So if I leave with 30 gallons on deck and 140 in the tanks for a three- to four-week trip to the Marquesas, I don't think this is overkill, but is actually appropriate for the sort of "expedition" we are contemplating, where reliable and/or reasonably priced diesel may not be available or, if available, will be at widely separated spots. The logic is partly absolute, as plenty of motoring may be required to offset other consumption, and partly economic, just as it is for any ship.

This is part of the equation that differentiates "cruiser" from "expedition", where, as is implied, the "expedition" boat has to be prepared to carry everything needed from "internal stores". It's a different type of cruising, but in reality, it's more like the Smeaton and Hiscock type of the '50s and '60s, when outside of Europe and the States, few if any facilities existed for the cruiser, because few if any cruisers went where they did.

Well done - Thanks so much. . .

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by BillKov

Granted - Our cat will be a sailboat as well with two YM 29hp diesels and two 60 g fuel tanks but they are necessary to run up every now and then to recharge and to maneuver in port, right?

Indeed. A cat is a bit of a special case, however, as there are limits to its tankage. Cats are great candidates for really good watermakers, I think, because you can't carry hundreds of gallons like I do (partially for trim reasons, not because I'm so thirsty).

They are also great candidates for wind and solar, because you can't carry surplus fuel for a genset (nor easily bear the weight), and charging via these method doesn't use your fuel supply (even though two 29 HPs on such an easily driven boat is liable to yield a pretty impressive NM/gal ratio).

Lastly, my steel monohull is about keeping us safe and keeping us from trip-ending screwups, like grounding on a reef. Steel buys you minutes to solve your problems, but it's rarely used to make fast boats. A cat is inherently faster, but "feels" a weight penalty more. Of course, a cat is great for island hopping in the South Pacific, but it's not the best choice, in my view, for long ocean passages.

The exception I would make are the cats that come out of South Africa and New Zealand, which seem very tough and don't have the "patio doors" that make me cringe...they HAVE to be seaworthy and superstrong to handle the seas of the Southern Ocean in a way that a coastal cat in North America or even in the Caribbean don't have to be...and sometimes aren't.

Fair winds.

[BillKov]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Indeed. A cat is a bit of a special case, however, as there are limits to its tankage. Cats are great candidates for really good watermakers, I think, because you can't carry hundreds of gallons like I do (partially for trim reasons, not because I'm so thirsty).

They are also great candidates for wind and solar, because you can't carry surplus fuel for a genset (nor easily bear the weight), and charging via these method doesn't use your fuel supply (even though two 29 HPs on such an easily driven boat is liable to yield a pretty impressive NM/gal ratio).

Lastly, my steel monohull is about keeping us safe and keeping us from trip-ending screwups, like grounding on a reef. Steel buys you minutes to solve your problems, but it's rarely used to make fast boats. A cat is inherently faster, but "feels" a weight penalty more. Of course, a cat is great for island hopping in the South Pacific, but it's not the best choice, in my view, for long ocean passages.

The exception I would make are the cats that come out of South Africa and New Zealand, which seem very tough and don't have the "patio doors" that make me cringe...they HAVE to be seaworthy and superstrong to handle the seas of the Southern Ocean in a way that a coastal cat in North America or even in the Caribbean don't have to be...and sometimes aren't.

Fair winds.

Agree with most of your points but respectfully disagree on others - I've researched NZ, SA and OZ cats extensively and agree that they are inherently built sturdy. . . their seas dictate strength over . . . style. . . the sometimes overt style of a condo cat. . .

But we feel that we have found a USA builder that is equal to the task, with a great history and .. . . would rather spend the money here.

It's all opinion, I guess so lets agree to disagree on that point. . .

Completely agree with solar but am not too convinced on wind until we find one that doesn't disturb others in a marina/anchorage. If you have any input on a quiet wind gen, let me know though and we'll consider it because we don't want to have go the genset route. . .

again, appreciate your support and enjoy the culture here. . .

Following seas. . .

Bill