I may be in trouble!

My wife and I had the opportunity to go sailing yesterday on a Tartan 34. The boat had a self tending jib, power winches, etc, and a warm cozy cabin with plenty of room. Equipped with a large refrigerator, generator, nice V births and a guest bunk, we were thoroughly impressed. Although it was a little more work than our trawler, the quietness of the ride and the simplicity of jibing and coming about were impressive. She also handled the waves much better than our boat.

Am I just suffering from "envy" or are the new age sail boats much easier to handle?

-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Monday 14th of June 2010 10:20:30 AM

Nice picture of you two. Sail boats are great in california!

Eric

You may be in trouble indeed Walt.

Both my wife and I have always been sailors but got into power boating 23 years ago for several reasons (a boat we could get out of the harbor and back relatively quickly for weekday jaunts and overnights as we both had to be at work each weekday; for the space for two kids and their friends as well as us; not having to find crew to sail a fairly large sailboat as some of our friends have to do).

I didn't miss sailing that much, but my wife did. So, as of about 6 years ago we also have a sailboat (daysailer). The day sailer is easy for her to single hand. We use the power boat during the week as a "summer cabin". She goes sailing on nice late afternoons and I putter on the power boat. On weekends and other time off, we go cruising on the power boat.

We also get invited to go sailing on friends larger sailboats but those boats (in the 50' range) are a lot of work in my mind.

But we are seeing a lot more of the larger sailboats with in-mast or boom furling as well as roller reefing headsails and power winches. Makes us think. Of course one get in a hell of a mess if those systems pack up in a tight and windy situation.

But we really enjoy sitting on our IG's "back porch" or flybridge at anchor or mooring and most sailboat cockpits are too exposed and uncomfortable for me now and I always feel as if I'm down in a cave without windows in sailboat cabins.

Sailboats are wonderful. I did some sailing in Hawaii when I lived there and for a few years after moving to the Seattle area I crewed on a friend's racing sailboat.

For long-distance ocean voyaging I believe it's the best way to go despite there being power boats like Nordhavn's out there.

But like everything else, it all depends on what you want out of boating. Our cruses to Desolation Sound and last year the Gulf Islands with friends from France were made in the company of friends who had a sailboat. They spent most of the trips under power. In fact, this same couple the year before took their 30' sailboat up the Inside Passage and all through SE Alaska and back in a five-month trip, during which they used the sails exactly one time. This is because up here, with the fickle winds through all the islands and the very high current speeds-- four or five knots is typical and it can reach ten or twelve in some of the passes-- it's very rare that the current and wind cooperate to let you make good progress under sail in the direction you actually want to go.

In 1977 when I was returning from a five-week Land Rover trip to the Yukon and we took the ferry from Sidney to Anacortes through the San Juan Islands on the way to California to ship the Land Rover home I was struck by the fact that almost every sailboat we saw from the ferry was cruising under power, something I had never seen in Hawaii.* The situation is no different today.

This was one of the main reasons my wife and I decided to get a GB rather than a sailboat when we decided to take up more serious cruising in this area. Also, we both like sitting higher when we're inside and being able to see all around us as opposed to the deep-in-the-hull cabin of most sailboats with their small windows.

If you live in an area of good, consistent winds and minimal currents (like Hawaii or as Eric says, California), a sailboat is perhaps a better choice than a powerboat.

Most sailboats are faily minimally powered--- just enough to drive them at hull speed and that's all. So they are very economical. I believe our friends used just 185 gallons of fuel for their entire SE Alaska trip, and as I said, they motored the entire time except for one short run they were able to make under sail. Our boat would use FAR more than that for the same trip. But this same hull-speed limitation means they are slow unless you get a big one with a long waterline and a big engine. On our joint cruises, our friends usually left a couple of hours before we did, we would pass them about halfway to the next destination, and then we would get there, get anchored, and get the fenders ready for when they showed up an hour or so later.

All the sailboats I crewed on had no roller reefing of any kind but at the time I never felt a fully-manual sail system was a particular hassle. So the roller reefing on jibs and mains that you see today must make sailing only a bit more complex than hitting the start button on a powerboat. And for people getting up there in years who are finding more difficulty in clambering around on a cluttered sailboat deck, the "automatic" sail handling systems must be a huge benefit. The "clambering around" is one of the main reasons our cruising friends sold their 30' sailboat last year and have taken up RV-ing.

So you have to decide on your priorities. If they are....

Very efficient cruising, even under power
Quiet cruising (although a racing sailboat at speed under spinnaker before a strong wind is anything but quiet)
A very high degree of seaworthiness
Long-distance ocean cruising
Never in a hurry to get anywhere
A relatively stable ride in rougher water
You don't mind wearing warm clothes and foul weather gear at the helm on those less-than-ideal days (unless you get a motorsailer).

... then a sailboat is a wonderful means of getting out onto the water.

I took the attached photo during our trip to Desolation Sound the other year. This was one of those rare occasions in the PNW when the wind was consistent, it was not being opposed by a strong current going the other way, and both the wind and current were headed in the direction we wanted to go.* Cruising speed of this particular boat under power, by the way, was six knots.* They were doing about four knots when I took the picture, but they were having a wonderful day's run.

If you think you really might like to take up sailing, I'd suggest you do the same thing I think potential power boaters should do.* Charter one.* Learn to sail if you don't already know how to--- it's a really fun challenge and it's not that hard--- and then charter a sailboat for a few days' trip or a week and see how you like it when you're the one who has to deal with the boat as opposed to being a passenger on somebody else's.




-- Edited by Marin on Monday 14th of June 2010 01:00:37 PM

As a former sailboat owner I would echo Marin's comments. Sailing out of Vancouver BC we found that summer cruising involved motoring 90% of the time (minimum) as the wind was either on our nose or non*existent. There were good winds in the winter, but it was winter - and remember that you are out in an open cockpit!

That said, there is nothing more sublime than being under full sail on a sunny afternoon. But it was very rare for us as cruisers.


You sometimes hear the argument that you see more scenery in a slow moving sailboat, which is bogus. Once we moved from a 5 knot sailboat to a 7 knot trawler we found that we could take the time to make little side trips along the way and explore places that normally we had to pass by just to get to our destination in daylight.


But it really comes down to three words: Inside Steering Station.

Inside steering!
I had that in my last sailboat, well, a fully enclosed centre cockpit. I would go back to sail in a heartbeat, for the right sailboat. Now my wife, on the other hand, would not. So I choose to stay with, and enjoy, power.
The arguments Marin makes, leave out one item. If you want to go day sailing, or short trips, where your time is available to get to your destination, you will sail over 1/2 of the time. It is those long treks to get somewhere, that you need to maximize your speed, that you can't sail more than 10% of the time because of Murphy's law: the wind (if any) will be coming from where you want to go 90% of the time. When unhurried, there is nothing so pleasing as the quiet burble of the water rushing past, interrupted by short bursts of activity while you come about or trim your sails. As for power furling, etc, most boats can be powered by a rechargeable drill with a 1" fitting in the chuck. My brother uses one on his 41 ft sailboat, and it hauls the mainsl up tighter than he can using the manual winch. It can also be used for speed hauling the jibsheets. You need a heavy duty drill, best with a 90 degree to the chuck.

Our last sailboat had all the comforts of home including several heating systems, a freezer a big waterheater and lots more.* We lived aboard for a long time, first in the S.F. Bay area, then in Alaska.* It was a pilot house boat with inside steering (but with poor visability) as well as auto pilot and a windvane.* From the time we bought it in San Diego, until we turned around in Juneau Alaska years later, we motor sailed 90% of the time.* On our last trip South, (after we had already purchaced out Defever) we were sitting in the cockpit (in the rain of course) dreaming of a kinder gentler trip North in our new boat. The following spring, while headed to Alaska in the Defever, we made friends with a guy in a very nice sailboat, and ended up buddy boating for about a week.* One morning, just South of Grenvill Channel it was pretty snotty.* Our sailboat buddy was about two miles ahead, and called us on the radio to inquire about conditions where we were.* We could hear the stress in his voice as he sat outside in the pounding rain, with the wind blowing icewater down his back and the boat pitching up and down.* I didn't have the nerve to tell him that I was sitting in the pilot house with my feet on the dash, stabilizers on, the heater set at a comfortable 72 degrees with a cup of coffie in my hand, and I was still in my PJs.* I simply told him we were getting along ok, and to let us know if he had any problems.* Meanwhile, I could easly see that it would have been us too, had we not sold the sailboat. We were sold on the powerboat.* I now say that we are reformed sailors.*

That's not to say that if I wanted to cross an ocean that a sail boat wouldn't be a better tool for that job, as no way could I afford a suitable boat for a trip like that....................Arctic Traveller

Thanks guys for all the info......I feel the sailing fever "ebbing" after considering all your remarks. Especially the one about sitting in pajamas, at 72 degrees, with a hot cup of coffee.
That's my kind of boating!

Seahorse ,
I am not a reformed sailor or anything else.
Marine Engineer, love engines and love living up where you can see what's goin on.
Don't like livin down in the ally.
A lot of my friends are rag and bone people and we cruise together so to speak.
We depart from a port they usually go earlier than me and then I get ther and have the BBQ ready for and if they arrive.
I say I am going from A to B they say we will depart A and hopfully get to B today , they usually do but with engine assist.
I love boats, all boats but to coastal cruise you can't beat a power boat.
That's why I also don't mind the sound of a generator hummin away quietly in the background nand the comfort and warmth of a nice saloon where you are still in contact with the outside world.
I aint religious so I can't pray for wind but most times I can make my diesel hum.
The other thing is my back deck is a lot more comfortable that most mono hull sail boat cockpits, cats on the other hand are a different kettel of fish.

Benn

Distance is the key.

For coast hopping a big diesel motor boat is probably the way to go,
plaining if your wallet is thick enough for the fuel bill.

If distance in in the plans SAILS are about the only way to get there , unless the boat is really large as some Pacific legs are 4000nm +.

In our 90/90 inshore , the sail covers seldom come off , usually only an a fine day , or as insurance .

Offshore the engine gets 2 hours every 3rd day motorsailing , to keep the freezer up , and the bat set happy.


The transport should fit the voyage.

As a recent convert from sail to power and approaching retirement I can say the clamoring around on a crowded deck did it in for me. Coupled with the fact that I motored 75% of the time made it an easy decision to move to the "dark side". My intention is to coastal cruise only with occasional jaunts to the Bahamas, so a displacement hull sailboat isn't as important.
However I will say I don't find the time motoring on my motor boat as pleasant or relaxing as the few times wind and current allowed me to efficiently sail.

Tidahapah wrote:
"Don't like livin down in the ally........

The other thing is my back deck is a lot more comfortable that most mono hull sail boat cockpits"

Click to expand...

My wife also brought up these two points that I must agree with. I guess I got caught up in the "moment" but I have to say that a beautiful sail boat is about the best looking thing on the water. (Other than Baker and Keith's crew.)

*

Trawler is the only way to go.

I took a friend out on Moon Dance last year for his first ride on a trawler.* He is a life long sailor, sailboat racer, fisherman and powerboater.* He was dazzled by my old tub.* He said, "Wow, this is great! It's like being on a sailboat except you can see and without all the &^*@# hassle of the sails"

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Baker wrote:

Trawler is the only way to go.

Click to expand...

No, high speed, multi-engine planing boat is the only way to do unless you can't afford it in which case a trawler is a boring--- but affordable--- second choice. In the air, on the ground, or on the water, there is no substitute for speed, only compromises.

We just got back from a week of fishing at the north end of Vancouver Island.* We use our Arima trailer boat for this, which has a cruise speed of 30 mph on good water.* God, it was wonderful to be able to zip around that fast, particfularly in the maze of island, bays, and channels in that part of the world.* Cruising in the GB is like watching paint dry in comparison.

I love the journey far more than the destination, but I want the journey to be at speed.* Slow sucks.

-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 15th of June 2010 12:54:29 PM

Marin, there are disadvantages to speed other than expense. *Going faster requires you to pay closer attention which causes fatigue. *Also going faster usually causes more noise which increases fatigue. *A lapse in that attention could cause you to hit something which has a much greater potential for serious damage and injury versus going slowly. *Going faster you don't always see the scenery.

Anyway, I went from a 6.5kt boat to a 15kt boat. *A 6 hour day on the faster boat feels like a 12 hour day on the slow boat. *To put it another abstract way....there is a rhythm to going slowly....there is no rhythm going fast. *If all of your legs are just 3 hour jaunts, then it is no big deal. *But if you are wanting to cover some ground(ie a 10 hour day), you will be whooped and the potential for mistakes goes up as time goes on....and the consequences of those mistakes are more grave the faster the boat is travelling.

Baker wrote:

Marin, there are disadvantages to speed other than expense. *Going faster requires you to pay closer attention which causes fatigue. *Also going faster usually causes more noise which increases fatigue. *A lapse in that attention could cause you to hit something which has a much greater potential for serious damage and injury versus going slowly. *Going faster you don't always see the scenery.

Click to expand...

Fine for you.* But none of that is true for me.* I love going fast, I have no more problem seeing and avoiding stuff in the water--- and up here there's a ton of it--- in the Arima at 30 mph as I do in the GB at 8 knots.* I don't get fatigued at all because the trip takes so much less time.* What might take eight hours in the GB would take less than three in a fast boat.* What I find tiring to the polnt of losing concentration is plodding along, hour after boring hour, in the tub of a GB at 8 knots.*

At the end of a day's running around in the Arima I feel pretty much the same as when I started and am ready to set out again.* At the end of a day's continuous run in the GB, I'm whacked, not because it's hard work but because it's so excruciatinly boring other than watching the passing scenery.* There's no challenge to keep me occupied.* Our dog could run the boat and have time to play fetch on deck while he was at it.* I have to use a timer alarm to remind me to check the engine instruments every five minutes.

As to seeing the scenery, I thought at first what you say would be true but both my wife and I find it's not.* We see all the whales and eagles and seabirds and everything else just as readily at 30 mph as we do at 8 knots.* The only difference is that at 8 knots, you see something for freaking ever as you creep past it at the speed of molasses.* At 30 mph, you see it, if you want to take a photo or look at it more carefully, you slow down or stop, and then off you go to the next thing.

In one run up north the other week we caught a halibut, saw minke and humpback whales, watched eagles feeding on fish on a beach, visited and explored a derelict but historic community site miles up 77-mile long Knight Inlet, stopped to watch a family of otters mucking about in the water next to a tiny island, watched a couple of bears feeding in the grass at a creek mouth, and came back to where we were staying, all in about five hours.* Al these individual things happened miles apart.* Had we spent the same amount of time in the same place in the GB, we would have seen hardly any of this.

Different strokes for different folks, but for us, slow truly sucks.* The only reason we have a slow tub of a trawler is we can't afford to run a big fast boat.* If we could, the GB would be history.




-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 15th of June 2010 01:22:51 PM

Like I said, you are covering a fixed amount of distance. If you have 600 miles to cover and you are trying to do it in as little time as possible(ie long days), then a fast boat will leave you more fatigued than a slow boat for the same long 12 hour day. If you are just trying to get to your favorite island that you go to every weekend that is 20 miles away, then sure, speed helps tremendously. But for true cruising, I think slow is the way to go. Now, since we have had speed in our current boat, our next boat will likely have the ability to plane. Speed can certainly be an asset...especially if you still live in the time constrained world(ie work). But if I were retired and cruising and time wasn't an issue, I would go slow. Again, I know we are just talking opinion here.....but I would say closer to fact reference the fatigue factor although we would not know that without a $397 million dollar study from the human factors folks at NASA. BUT, 6 hours on my current boat and I am ready to shut the bitch down! I could go forever on the old boat(we did do 68 hours stopping only once for fuel just because it was cheap).

You obviously like to "get there". I guess some enjoy the journey a bit more. And I totally understand watching the same landmark for hours(seemingly)....I laughed out loud on that one because I remember "those days".

Baker wrote:You obviously like to "get there". I guess some enjoy the journey a bit more.

Click to expand...

No, I don't like to get there.* In fact, I find "getting there" to be rather depressing after a day's cruise.* I far prefer the journey.* The destination is just someplace to eat and sleep before starting the next day's journey.

It's a bit of a dilemma, or would be if we could afford a fast cruiser.* I don't like "getting there" at all.* To me, boating is all about running the boat.* I could care less about visiting marinas and places where there are a bunch of other people.* Sitting around on the boat looking at the same thing for more than about two or three hours is a huge waste of time to me.* There's too much cool stuff to see in this world to hang arorund in one spot.* This is one reason I took up flying way back when.* And it's been a great thing about my job, having been to 30 countries and counting.* I hope I can go to 30 more before I retire.

But if we had a fast boat, we'd be getting to all the places I don't like to get to even sooner than we do now.* So the boat-driving journeys would be much shorter, which would suck as much as going slow sucks.* So it's a rock-and-a-hard place situation.* Fortunately--- I guess--- we can't afford a boat that burns 30-50 gallons an hour so I get to make my long boat-running journeys.* Unfortunately, I have to make them at a bone-numbing crawl.....

I don't like running a slow boat.* I've run a fast boat (not mine) in Hawaii for some seven or eight hours straight a few times years ago and I found it far less tiring, even in the rough water over there, than the same time spent running in the GB.

I agree some people-- maybe most people--- get more fatigued running faster as opposed to running slower.* But I've never found that to be the case for me.* I do find noise--- loud noise--- to be fatiguing but that is easily solved in planes like the Beaver (very noisy) and in boats if necessary with ear protection.* Our Arima at 30 mph is not all that much noisier than the lower helm of our GB with two diesels hammering away under my feet, so in this case the noise issue is a wash.



-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 15th of June 2010 01:43:57 PM

Marin, I well remember the boat in the first photo.* It was owned by a gentleman by the name of Owen Owens.* I first met him when I was a kid working in a gas station.* He came in in a 1940s touring car, the kind with the huge wheels and spare tires on the running boards.* It was a convertable, and he had probably 10 kids aboard, all his.* The photo looks like it was taken in Lake Tahoe.* The boat tended to win the top award at the annual Tahoe wooden boat festival in July.* Wish I could remember the name of it, any idea?

The second photo made me gasp at the thought of how much av gas those things gulped.* Then again, it was probably only .15 cents a gallon..............Arctic Traveller

Arctic Traveller---

Your memory is good. The boat is on Lake Tahoe (or was when the photo was taken-- I got it off the web) and its name is "Thunderbird."

The PTs of WWII were powered with three Packard 4M-2500 V-12 marine engines of 1,200 horsepower each (raised later in the war to 1,500 hp). At max boat speed each engine burned 158 gallons per hour of high octane aviation fuel. With a total tank capacity of 3,000 gallons, this gave the boat*an endurance of a little over six hours.

At "normal" cruise speeds of 30-35 mph, each engine burned 97 gallons per hour for a max endurance of about 10 hours.

That was with a new boat from the factory. Given the accumulation of marine growth in the field*and the tendency of their crews to weigh the boats*down with additional guns (by the end of the war the PTs were the heaviest armed vessels*in the US Navy pound for pound), the fuel consumption in reality*was somewhat higher.

Of course if the engines were throttled down or shut off on station or when idling along the islands looking for targets, the fuel consumption went down accordingly. But in the Pacific theatre where the boats were used almost exclusively at night, a full load of fuel was sufficent for one mission only. At most of the PT bases, fuel was loaded into the PTs from 50 gallon drums, often with just a hand pump.



-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 15th of June 2010 07:20:55 PM

The fast boat vs slow boat/ Marin vs Baker discussion will always be a point of contention. If everyone who owns a slow boat could go fast just this once, wouldn't you? But the argument is not that simple. A slow boat is economical, and many times more sea worthy. A fast boat will allow you more destinations on a limited time budget, but will require you to watch the weather and budget your fuel costs. A slow boat can only go slow, a fast boat can be operated slowly to save fuel. A fast boat has high performance engines (at least in diesels) and they have their own issues.
The debate goes on and on, and there is no right answer.

For me I chose a fast boat (if 25 kts is considered fast) because my wife didn't like anything else we saw. It had nothing to do with speed, but everything to do with keeping the admiral happy knowing she's more likely to want to use the boat if she's happy.




-- Edited by timjet on Wednesday 16th of June 2010 05:28:28 AM

Marin, coming back the fast versus slow issue, there is one other negative to be considered....I raise it because it is quite an issue here in Moreton bay, where we have a lot of dugong (manatee to you), turtles and dolphins, and that is...the boating equivalent of road-kill is quite an issue. How does that rate in the places you cruise?

One unexpected benefit of this site is that you learn how to speak 'stralian!!!!... Yes, manantees are an issue in Florida...I even think they have manatee zones where you must go slow.

-- Edited by Baker on Wednesday 16th of June 2010 07:19:59 AM

timjet wrote:A slow boat is economical, and many times more sea worthy.

Click to expand...

Faster can definately be more comfortable. By way of example, a few years ago I ran a 50 ft Delta on daily fishing trips into the Gulf of Alaska.* We went out about 60 miles in all types of weather.* Some days were particuarlly crummy, with big seas and high winds, and there were plenty of times I was quite happy to be in the high speed (20 plus knots) Delta rather than my full displacement Defever.* My trawler would have been wallowing all over the compass rose, but the Delta tracked perfectly straight, and required minimal steering input in almost all sea states (while at speed).* Where my boat would have been pitching up and down like crazy, the high speed Delta simply climbed up and over the swells.* On the other hand, I sure wouldn't have wanted to pay the fuel bill, and living aboard would not have been fun.........Arctic Traveller

Peter B wrote:

the boating equivalent of road-kill is quite an issue. How does that rate in the places you cruise?

Click to expand...

You bring up a very good point with regard to going fast in areas where animals could be killed or wounded.* This is not a problem in our waters.* All the mammals in our area are fast--- orcas, porpoises, dolphins, seals, and diving seabirds--- and they are quick to get out of the way if something is coming.* There are larger whales in the region--- gray, minke, and humpback--- but they are relatively rare in the inside waters.* In the twenty-plus years we've been boating in this area, first in the 30 mph Arima and now in both that and the GB, I've never heard of anyone striking an animal with a recreational boat although I suppose it must have happened at some point.

The most numerous powerboats up here are the semi-planing boats like Bayliners/Meridians that cruise around in the 12 to 15 or more knot range.* So far as I know, at these speeds collisions with marine life is a non-issue.

We make it a point in both the Arima and the GB to steer around flocks of seabirds on the water ever since we learned in a wildlife seminar awhile back that birds use a lot of energy to fly, particularly the diving birds that aren't very efficient flyers like cormorants and the like.* So we try to steer around them early enough not to alarm them into flight.* Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't-- cormorants are very skittery by nature and tend to take flight no matter what.

But in areas where slow-moving animals like manatees can easily be hit by fast boats, sure, I agree that the boaters should slow down to a crawl if that's what it takes to avoid hitting the animals.* There's nothing they can do to avoid a collision so it's up to us to keep them safe, as inconvenient as I know it is to those boaters who are always in an "it's all about me" hurry.

*

Arctic Traveller,I agree. Very much so. Trawler speeds are rather like wallowing as you point out. But Marin is right too, up to a point. 25, 35 and 50 knots is great as long as it's comfortable but w lots of noise, pounding and stress the joy of speed only lasts so long. I'm a tweener on this one. I could go 50 knots from Juneau to Petersburg (120mi?) in a flat calm and in a cabin but how long is calm going to last? Twelve knots is perfect for me. I got the Willy to go in most weather all day for a week or two without worrying a bit about fuel burn. So far in Alaska I've not spent the time on the water to worry about 2 or even 3gph. Should have got a Nordy as it seems the under loading issue may not be as much of a problem (or no problem at all) and I'm having trouble finding enough time to burn fuel. I think there's only one guy on TF that has a Nordic Tug * * *..Doc * * is that right? Why so few w such a popular boat I wonder. But w the issue of the joy being in the trip or the destination * * * ..THE TRIP. When I was in college I had a girlfriend w a father w a 36' 3 cabin Chris. Karen and I were on the aft cabin in the sun one day and she said "hey * ..you really enjoy this underway stuff don't you". My answer came w a big smile. Long passages at 12 to 15 knots for me please.


Eric


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Wednesday 16th of June 2010 05:53:57 PM

Thunderbird is one of my favorite boats.

She has mirrors on both internal bulkheads in the main cabin ,

and the spacing of the windows is Perfect to create the optical illusion that the cabin goes to infinity!!

Talk about EYE CANDY!

Was Thunderbird once owned by Bill Harrah? In any event, although I've never seen it in person I've salivated over various magazine coverages over the years.

A slow boat is economical, and many times more sea worthy.

That's a huge stretch that might be true , but usually with pleasure boats is NOT.

Sea worthy costs 300% more to create in the boat , most folks prefer looks , and volume to sea worthy.