Sailing vs Power Catamaran - Time, Cost and Enjoyment

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Evanlewis

I think I found the best solution to the sailing vs power catamaran question. I had seawind build an 1190 sport with two 70hp engines rather than the standard 20 or optional 25hp. It does 12 knots under power, and that is carrying a generator, 2 air conditioners, 3 fuel tanks, a washing machine, etc. It also sails really well, like a scaled-down outremer. It draws under 2.5 feet with the boards up, and fits under ICW bridges.

Congrats on the new boat, Evan. I saw your video of the boat pulling the wakeboard that you posted on Seawind Club. Cool.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Similar aged boats?

Nope
And they are not similar sized either.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Evanlewis

I think I found the best solution to the sailing vs power catamaran question. I had seawind build an 1190 sport with two 70hp engines rather than the standard 20 or optional 25hp. It does 12 knots under power, and that is carrying a generator, 2 air conditioners, 3 fuel tanks, a washing machine, etc.

Does she have a tendency to squat under power?

[Evanlewis]

She seems to perform better with weight (eg crew) forward. Between the generator, generator fuel tank, washing machine, scuba tanks, all aft, I think I can improve performance when I get the weight more balanced.

Note: in shallow water, the performance drops off and the boat leans way back. Even with full throttle, the speed literally drops back down to hull speed as the depth gets below 5 feet. It is happiest with more than 10 feet of depth.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Evanlewis

She seems to perform better with weight (eg crew) forward. Between the generator, generator fuel tank, washing machine, scuba tanks, all aft, I think I can improve performance when I get the weight more balanced.



Note: in shallow water, the performance drops off and the boat leans way back. Even with full throttle, the speed literally drops back down to hull speed as the depth gets below 5 feet. It is happiest with more than 10 feet of depth.

Remember the Seawind 1190 hull is essentially a stern-stretched 1160. The 1160 was originally designed for dual diesels. I suspect your outboards still weigh less. Our 1160 Lite with dual Ysmaha 25s sits a little nose down at rest. I think it actually points upwind a bit better like that.

[Evanlewis]

The 70hp yamaha outboards are only 50 lbs more than the 25hp high thrust (which are 100lbs more than the 20hp honda). And the 70hp comes with the same lower unit as the 60hp high thrust, yet weighs less.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Evanlewis

The 70hp yamaha outboards are only 50 lbs more than the 25hp high thrust (which are 100lbs more than the 20hp honda). And the 70hp comes with the same lower unit as the 60hp high thrust, yet weighs less.

Yep, the old Yam 25HT was a big, heavy beast alright.

Good news is, they've brought out a new model, much lighter and more compact, and with EFI.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Nope
And they are not similar sized either.

There's little point comparing an old boat with a new one, when it comes to value for money. An old boat, especially one that needs work, is basically only worth what someone will pay for it.

You can buy old Rolls or Bentlys for peanuts, cheaper than new Hyundais.

No comparison in terms of space and comfort. But the new car is new, comes with all new bits, a warranty etc....

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

There's little point comparing an old boat with a new one, when it comes to value for money. An old boat, especially one that needs work, is basically only worth what someone will pay for it.

You can buy old Rolls or Bentlys for peanuts, cheaper than new Hyundais.

No comparison in terms of space and comfort. But the new car is new, comes with all new bits, a warranty etc....

Cool story if the Seawind was new but it wasn't, that model would be about 10 years old now , would need some work as all boats do and would certainly be out of warranty.
Like anything, it too is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Anyway, the point was that the claim

. I have little doubt that for folks like me who almost never motor, sailing is far cheaper

is not necessarily true if you take into account capital outlay.

[44'cruisingcat]

Again, it's not a valid comparison.

What if the Seawind owner was willing to sell his boat to you for $10,000? Or $10? Then sail would work out far cheaper, taking capital costs into account.

You may have gotten a bargain on your boat, but that doesn't necessarily represent the comparison across the entire field of sail vs motorboats. Some motorboats are phenomenally expensive, to buy and to run. Some may be reasonably cheap to buy, but not to run. (A friend recently moved his Hatteras 8 miles up the Burnett river and used around 80 litres of diesel doing it) There's a whole spectrum out there.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Again, it's not a valid comparison.

What if the Seawind owner was willing to sell his boat to you for $10,000? Or $10? Then sail would work out far cheaper, taking capital costs into account.
.

Sure it would but we are dealing with reality here aren't we?

You may have gotten a bargain on your boat, but that doesn't necessarily represent the comparison across the entire field of sail vs motorboats. Some motorboats are phenomenally expensive, to buy and to run.

As are most decent sized sailing vessels that can actually sail

Some may be reasonably cheap to buy, but not to run. (A friend recently moved his Hatteras 8 miles up the Burnett river and used around 80 litres of diesel doing it) There's a whole spectrum out there

Same 8nm trip for us would use under 20 litres shifting 65 tonne of comfort at a comfortable 7.5 knots, even better if using the tide.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

I didn't mean it tribally, sorry if that came across wrong. The best part of sailing is turning the engine off. Powercats don't do that. If you're considering them, then the part where you turn the engines off obviously isn't terribly important to you. In which case I'm sure a powercat would be a better option.

Does your sensation come from getting rid of the noise & virbation or from sailing (i.e. harvesting the wind)?
So would a cat with electrical propulsion do the trick for you?

Personally I am not obsessive about sailing. I just prefer to move without fumes, vibrations and noise. So much that the 200 liter / 50gal tank lasted us 4-6 months of cruising.

A good electrical propulsion system with a range of 20nm and some ICE backup for longer trips would be sufficient. But thats a hole different story.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Sure it would but we are dealing with reality here aren't we?


As are most decent sized sailing vessels that can actually sail

Same 8nm trip for us would use under 20 litres shifting 65 tonne of comfort at a comfortable 7.5 knots, even better if using the tide.

Our 44' catamaran only cost $200k Au, brand new, fully equipped full warranty on electronics, motors, hatches etc, with brand new hull, rig, sails, fridge, freezer...

And that 8 mile run would consume maybe 5 litresof fuel, less( possibly near zero) if we sailed or used the tide.

The thing is, I don't try to pretend this is typical.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Cool story if the Seawind was new but it wasn't, that model would be about 10 years old now , would need some work as all boats do and would certainly be out of warranty.
Like anything, it too is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Anyway, the point was that the claim is not necessarily true if you take into account capital outlay.

Wow I just looked up the specs on a Millkraft 60.

Biggest shock is that it is made out of wood. Next was some of the numbers about fuel consumption don't match up with what others are claiming.

I have no doubt a 60 foot boat has more room and is more comfortable than a 32 foot boat.

As for needing work I don't know anyone who would not claim a wood boat would need a lot more money and work to maintain it than a fiberglass one. While I have no idea when your boat was built some of the Millkrafts I saw were built more than 50 years ago. For a wood boat that is really a long time.

I have seen a lot of old wood boats on both coasts of Florida. Unless they are continually maintained they quickly fall in disrepair. On the other hand many fiberglass boats need much less to keep them looking good.

Be it sail or motor there is a huge reluctance by most boaters to buy a wood boat; especially a really old wood boat. That is the reason the prices are so low.

I suspect part of the reason there is something to your claims is that you were able to pick up an old wood boat for a cheap price. Given the rule of thumb is that you need to spend somewhere around 10% of a boat's price every year to maintain it at a minimum; and a lot more for older wood boats maybe you could tell us how much a year you spend to maintain an old wood boat, not to mention the engines in an old boat.

Since 2012 when I bought my Seawind I have hauled it out for a bottom job (I keep it in a cool clear spring fed fresh water river in hurricane season which really helps reduce growth when I cruise in salt water), had the lower units on my two outboards pulled and impellers and fluids replaced, replaced a block that a pin broke on, replaced the accumulator and water pump for the fresh water system, and bought some porch screen to enclose the cockpit and cut down on direct sun light. Also bought stuff like 303 and wax. But the PO for my boat did a great job keeping it in much better than average shape before I bought it.

Would be interesting to see what it cost you to maintain your old wooden boat.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Wow I just looked up the specs on a Millkraft 60.
Biggest shock is that it is made out of wood.

Scares some people
Others not so much.
Plenty of fast multihulls are made of wood, epoxy and fiberglass
And everything from the hull up on this vessel is made from wood, epoxy and fiberglass.
The hull , prop and rudder is the only part of her that is original.
Everything else was replaced between 2000 and 2005
Engine, tanks, hydraulics, deck, cabin, plumbing, electronics, everything.

Be it sail or motor there is a huge reluctance by most boaters to buy a wood boat; especially a really old wood boat. That is the reason the prices are so low.

Really?
Millkraft and Wrights still fetch big money here.

https://www.boatsales.com.au/boats/r....NORMAN+WRIGHT.))

Next was some of the numbers about fuel consumption don't match up with what others are claiming

.

Others have bigger engines and push them harder = more fuel used.
We are in no rush so are happy to run around just under hull speed 1150 to 1200rpm and 15lph for 7.5 to 8 knots , pushing the levers forward to 1750 burns 65lph and shortens range dramatically for not much increase in speed.

Given the rule of thumb is that you need to spend somewhere around 10% of a boat's price every year to maintain it at a minimum; and a lot more for older wood boats maybe you could tell us how much a year you spend to maintain an old wood boat,

Every 2 years we pull her out and throw $15k at her but most of that is taken up by high Australian wages plus I am capable of doing additional work while on the water.
This is enough to keep her in good running condition but cosmetically she needs more.

The plan is maybe next year to have her up in South East Asia permanently where $15k a year will buy 10 x the love.
Added bonus is diesel prices and general cost of living are considerably less.

. not to mention the engines in an old boat.

The engines cost the same to maintain in an old boat or a new boat a fiberglass or a timber boat.
The cost to maintain is bugger all, similar to any smaller yacht but with more oil.
Belts, impeller, oil and filters so far over 3 years have cost about $300 in total and several hours work.
The engine on this, as was all the gear, was replaced in 2000/2005 (engine has 1999 build plate) during the extensive rebuild and now has 3500 hours on it.
The 855 series Cummins regularly get 35thousand hours out of them between rebuilds.
At current rate of use that's about another 100 years of life expectancy.
She'll still be going strong when you and I are dead and buried