Sometimes big engines are an advantage
- Thread starter ksanders
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
We have a conflation of marine terms - with which many of us have long familiarity - with marketing concepts. I don't see the point in trying to reconcile the two worlds.
I am interested, though, in trends in recreational boats and boating, partly because I have one (and will likely have others) and partly because I'm interested in how these changes will affect boating for the next generation(s).
In my part of the world there aren't likely to be many significant new cruising destinations. Even with climate change, we probably won't experience substantial weather changes. The price of fuel will fluctuate, the cost of boats will probably increase, and the licensing and government intrusion are certain to become more burdensome. The cost of moorage seems destined to rise significantly.
It will be interesting to see if any major new trends emerge. Power cats are not for me, but the hull for a friend's new Aspen was popped out this week - a year after placing his order, so I'm guessing we'll be seeing more of these and fewer GBs, KKs, and small Norhavns in the years to come. Unless, of course, I'm wrong. ?
I am interested, though, in trends in recreational boats and boating, partly because I have one (and will likely have others) and partly because I'm interested in how these changes will affect boating for the next generation(s).
In my part of the world there aren't likely to be many significant new cruising destinations. Even with climate change, we probably won't experience substantial weather changes. The price of fuel will fluctuate, the cost of boats will probably increase, and the licensing and government intrusion are certain to become more burdensome. The cost of moorage seems destined to rise significantly.
It will be interesting to see if any major new trends emerge. Power cats are not for me, but the hull for a friend's new Aspen was popped out this week - a year after placing his order, so I'm guessing we'll be seeing more of these and fewer GBs, KKs, and small Norhavns in the years to come. Unless, of course, I'm wrong. ?
OP
OP
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
Like others I could care less what people call my boat.
Where I have a challenge, and where I will forever prove them wrong every time is when people try to directly or indirectly say that its not suitable, within its fuel range, of open ocean travel.
Where I have a challenge, and where I will forever prove them wrong every time is when people try to directly or indirectly say that its not suitable, within its fuel range, of open ocean travel.
It's amazing to me how many apparently otherwise intelligent boaters get suckered in by this marketing BS. I guess it just goes to prove that you can always fool some of the people all of the time.
It's amazing to me how one apparently otherwise intelligent boater gets suckered in by this obsession with the use of one word BS. I guess it just goes to prove that you can always fool some of the people all of the time.
Nor mine. However, and perhaps because of what I do, it does piss me off to see language used improperly, particularly for a totally bogus reason.
Well, I think you've effectively proven them wrong on more than one occasion.
There is a somewhat famous incident that occasionally comes up on the GB owners forum about a fellow who took a GB42 from Hawaii to the west coast. He removed one propeller and carried it on board. He did the first half of the voyage on the engine that had a propeller connected to it, then halfway across stopped, dove on the boat, installed the propeller he'd removed and removed the propeller he'd been running on and continued on the other engine and prop.
I have no idea how he dealt with having sufficient fuel for the trip but he did. Removing the prop eliminated the drag from the unpowered prop, be it freewheeling or locked, and so reduced his fuel consumption accordingly. Changing engines halfway across put equal time on both of them for the trip.
So 2500 miles or thereabouts in a GB42 on the open Pacific. Obviously the weather cooperated and so far as I've read he conducted the trip without incident.
Now a GB is a crappy open ocean boat because it's not designed to take with what the ocean CAN deal out. In the case of this trip, the Pacific lived up to its name.
Does that mean GB owners should all rush out to begin tran-oceanic voyages? Not if they're smart. But it goes to show that the GB, or at least the GB42, can deal with open ocean conditions as long as they don't exceed a certain, shall we say, intensity.
Does this one incident demonstrate that the GB42 is an ideal ocean cruiser? Of course not. Just as the promo voyage of a Great Harbor 37 from the factory through the Panama Canal and over to Hawaii doesn't make that boat an ideal ocean cruiser either.
But contrary to a fair number of opinions, it does demonstrate that these boats don't simply fall apart at the sight of an empty horizon all around them.
Last edited:
Wayfarer
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 2,228
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Sylphide
- Vessel Make
- Kingston Aluminum Yacht 44' Custom
Wayfarer has a planing hull and two gas engines. One of them was out of service, but since it was going to take a while to get the parts in, I had them leave her in the water as long as possible. For two weeks I ran around on one engine, relegated to hull speed. Maybe a tad over. Eight miles per hour at the most.
While most of the boats I admire and dream about are big fat slow ones (like me,) with pilothouses and salty lines, I must admit, it has been a bit frustrating knowing that my boat should be cruising at 24 knots and wasn't. I didn't have anywhere to be, or any weather to outrun. I just... wanted to go faster.
I guess since I don't have the luxury of unlimited time to cruise, speed is an asset to me. If I was retired, or otherwise has several months off at a time, slow could be very enjoyable. For now, it's s nice to have the fast option.
While most of the boats I admire and dream about are big fat slow ones (like me,) with pilothouses and salty lines, I must admit, it has been a bit frustrating knowing that my boat should be cruising at 24 knots and wasn't. I didn't have anywhere to be, or any weather to outrun. I just... wanted to go faster.
I guess since I don't have the luxury of unlimited time to cruise, speed is an asset to me. If I was retired, or otherwise has several months off at a time, slow could be very enjoyable. For now, it's s nice to have the fast option.
OP
OP
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
Thank you Marin!
The whole point of this thread was not to enter into a debate wether a SD boat was open ocean capable. Any reasonable person knows they are.
The point of this thread was to show that a SD hull with large enough engines can, contrary to popular belief have advantages over slower boats in the open ocean.
I will not take anything away from the true passagemakers. For their intended mission, crossing oceans, they are a great platform. In their domain they are the only dependable platform.
Take away the need to cross oceans and your options expand. A SD or planing boat is one of those options.
The whole point of this thread was not to enter into a debate wether a SD boat was open ocean capable. Any reasonable person knows they are.
The point of this thread was to show that a SD hull with large enough engines can, contrary to popular belief have advantages over slower boats in the open ocean.
I will not take anything away from the true passagemakers. For their intended mission, crossing oceans, they are a great platform. In their domain they are the only dependable platform.
Take away the need to cross oceans and your options expand. A SD or planing boat is one of those options.
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
"Now a GB is a crappy open ocean boat because it's not designed to take with what the ocean CAN deal out. In the case of this trip, the Pacific lived up to its name."
There have been many sail circumnavigations that with planning and waiting for the right season , not more than 35K of wind was encountered.
This does nothing for the concept of the fast boat with big engines that MUST NOT be "caught out".
There have been many sail circumnavigations that with planning and waiting for the right season , not more than 35K of wind was encountered.
This does nothing for the concept of the fast boat with big engines that MUST NOT be "caught out".
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
In a post way, way, back, Don Moon said….
"We usually run fast between destinations. Then slow down for a few days to savor the area."
Now that concept I really like.
Hey, re this terminology thing…maybe we call our boats 'non-yachts'? :so cool:
Naaaaah...
"We usually run fast between destinations. Then slow down for a few days to savor the area."
Now that concept I really like.
Hey, re this terminology thing…maybe we call our boats 'non-yachts'? :so cool:
Naaaaah...
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,867
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
Your boat cruises, it has a cabin. It's a cabin cruiser. You can certainly call it something more accurate if you like but it does NOT have trawl gear on board. So it's definitely NOT a trawler.
You can dick around with the language all you want but that doesn't make using a commercial fishing term to describe a recreational boat correct. It just makes it ignorant. It doesn't matter one iota what the cabin cruiser cost, it's not a fishing boat by any stretch of the imagination.
It's amazing to me how many apparently otherwise intelligent boaters get suckered in by this marketing BS. I guess it just goes to prove that you can always fool some of the people all of the time.
Marin, nice try. I didn't say my boat was a trawler, I said it wasn't a cabin cruiser. It's' amazing to me how an apparently otherwise intelligent person can become so obsessed over other peoples use of one word or in this case not even using the word.
You probably don't want to look at this link:
Wikipedia Recreational Trawler
Ted
Last edited:
kulas44
Guru
KSanders, I'm sure your 47 foot boat is every bit as seaworthy as my 48 foot sporty, which I mentioned as being not good enough for me but plenty for most. Dont get me wrong, I really like the 88 series of bayliners, especially the 4788. I think they are a much better built boat than a lot of the supposedly "better built" boats made. I like big diesel engines, I own quite a few of them. I also like to go fast in a big boat, my sporty will turn 29 knots on the pins and at 25 it feels "right". With 1200 HP of DD iron it makes BigOilCo. smile at that speed. What I wont do is post on a trawler forum that any of its attributes makes it better than a trawler. Marin, I read that same "took the prop off for a long trip" story on the Sam's Hatteras forum. True or not, IDK. However, I promise you that in the middle of the Pacific Ocean I am not gonna change props unless its absolutely neccessary.
IMO what we call our boats doesn't matter. What matters to me is that so many people come here looking for information but with a preconception that they want a trawler without knowing what that is and what the features and benefits of various designs are. They rule out a lot of designs based on false assumptions many of which like rudders falling off sail boats in mid ocean being relevant to us are repeated here..
kulas44
Guru
I participate in a couple of fishing forums, offshore mostly. The type of boats most often talked about there are smallish (less than 35 feet) relatively fast center console boats. The biggest ongoing debate is catamaran vs v-hull. I have a 31 foot cat. Twin outboards. My least favorite fishing boat is a 31 Bertram. I have fished on lots of them and I just REALLY dont like them. However they have a cult following and several forums/website dedicated to just that boat. I would not be so bold as to post on any of them that my catamaran was better in any given situation or that outboards were better "this time". It being a Bertram 31 forum and all
Going back to Kevin's original post about big engines and how it enabled him to cross a body of water more quickly...
This thread has touched on some of the tradeoffs - fuel consumption, fuel capacity, engine room crowding, maintenance, et cetera.
But here's one more factor - water capacity. The Bayliner 4778 has two water tanks forward - 140 and 60 gallons (figures differ, but this is the gist of it). If Bayliner installed a bow thruster at the factory they relocated the 60 gallon tank, but if they didn't then adding a thruster eliminates that tank and owners are down to 140 gallons (plus the 18 in the water heater, though since you can't drain it you can't count that).
I posted yesterday about the water shortage in the Gulf Islands, and my wife just mentioned that email again this morning which made me think to add it to this thread.
So...planing boat, big twin diesels, every cubic inch utilized (4788 owners do crazy stuff like relocate holding tanks to get enough room to install another small piece of equipment - like a much needed watermaker!), and a water capacity that is - at best - 200 gallons. For a 3 stateroom boat. OK, an owner can install a watermaker (performing significant surgery in the process) but I dunno, watermakers are finicky and it seems like the vast majority of watermakers are "out of service".
Notwithstanding the need / desire to be able to go fast to cross larger bodies, time a tide change, outrun the other boats to the anchorage, whatever...the accumulated tradeoffs of the planing style boat are - collectively - not my preference. I get that some folks want to run fast to get to the destination, but - again, for me - I like the "getting there" as much if not more than the "being there". I'm quite content to putter along at 7.5 knots, working with current charts to pick a route that give me an extra .5 knots, not being overly worried about hitting anything, keeping the noise / vibration / fuel consumption / et cetera to moderate levels, watching to world go by and - if it gets a little boring - heck, I can read a book and look up every couple of minutes.
Then again, here in the PNW the boating is interesting. The topography is stunning. There are lots of other vessels on the water. The tides and currents and other challenges are engaging. I see vessels making long straight runs in areas with flat horizons (like the Gulf of Mexico) and I suppose that might be tedious. But I actually enjoy the journey and if I were to run faster (clearly an impossibility with my boat!) that wouldn't significantly improve my overall enjoyment.
On the other hand, my wife would prefer a Star Trek transporter...
This thread has touched on some of the tradeoffs - fuel consumption, fuel capacity, engine room crowding, maintenance, et cetera.
But here's one more factor - water capacity. The Bayliner 4778 has two water tanks forward - 140 and 60 gallons (figures differ, but this is the gist of it). If Bayliner installed a bow thruster at the factory they relocated the 60 gallon tank, but if they didn't then adding a thruster eliminates that tank and owners are down to 140 gallons (plus the 18 in the water heater, though since you can't drain it you can't count that).
I posted yesterday about the water shortage in the Gulf Islands, and my wife just mentioned that email again this morning which made me think to add it to this thread.
So...planing boat, big twin diesels, every cubic inch utilized (4788 owners do crazy stuff like relocate holding tanks to get enough room to install another small piece of equipment - like a much needed watermaker!), and a water capacity that is - at best - 200 gallons. For a 3 stateroom boat. OK, an owner can install a watermaker (performing significant surgery in the process) but I dunno, watermakers are finicky and it seems like the vast majority of watermakers are "out of service".
Notwithstanding the need / desire to be able to go fast to cross larger bodies, time a tide change, outrun the other boats to the anchorage, whatever...the accumulated tradeoffs of the planing style boat are - collectively - not my preference. I get that some folks want to run fast to get to the destination, but - again, for me - I like the "getting there" as much if not more than the "being there". I'm quite content to putter along at 7.5 knots, working with current charts to pick a route that give me an extra .5 knots, not being overly worried about hitting anything, keeping the noise / vibration / fuel consumption / et cetera to moderate levels, watching to world go by and - if it gets a little boring - heck, I can read a book and look up every couple of minutes.
Then again, here in the PNW the boating is interesting. The topography is stunning. There are lots of other vessels on the water. The tides and currents and other challenges are engaging. I see vessels making long straight runs in areas with flat horizons (like the Gulf of Mexico) and I suppose that might be tedious. But I actually enjoy the journey and if I were to run faster (clearly an impossibility with my boat!) that wouldn't significantly improve my overall enjoyment.
On the other hand, my wife would prefer a Star Trek transporter...
Restitution
Senior Member
I do believe that there are hundreds of lost boats, and souls, off of the Graveyard Of The Pacific (Astoria) that wished that they had had more power/speed to safely get over the Columbia river bar and/or beat changing weather. Actually, you can find many of these wrecks, large and small, on sea charts.
kulas44
Guru
IIRC Bob Bitchin's take on a faster sailboat was the same. He said "I enjoy the journey, why would I want to shorten it ?"
psneeld
Guru
Just remember...for every perception of reality posted here...someone can probably post where what is important to you can be altered by something...seamanship, machinery, equipment, philosophy, daring...etc...etc...
take a stand on most things posted here...someone will just post examples of why it is only half true.
take a stand on most things posted here...someone will just post examples of why it is only half true.
Yep, Tiger Cruise..
Been on two of them. As long as your Sailor does not work in a classified space you can go to work with them every day as my wife and I did.
They sponsor a scavenger hunt that forces you to visit work spaces all over the ship. We crawled down to the rudder control room where a Sailor is on duty 24/7 in the event they cannot steer from the helm, etc. etc.
Been on two of them. As long as your Sailor does not work in a classified space you can go to work with them every day as my wife and I did.
They sponsor a scavenger hunt that forces you to visit work spaces all over the ship. We crawled down to the rudder control room where a Sailor is on duty 24/7 in the event they cannot steer from the helm, etc. etc.
Nomad Willy
Guru
"Sometimes" (as Kevin said in the beginning) big engines have advantages.
In a FD hull that's not the case.
In a planing or semi-planing hull (almost all the boats here) sometimes (or even more times than that) big engines have advantages.
But most of the boats here don't benifit much from more power. Lots here run on one engine or at 25% load.
So for most of the time most of our boats have too much power to way too much power.
Seems odd to me that a triple screw boat would make sooo much sense here but ..... never heard of one.
In a FD hull that's not the case.
In a planing or semi-planing hull (almost all the boats here) sometimes (or even more times than that) big engines have advantages.
But most of the boats here don't benifit much from more power. Lots here run on one engine or at 25% load.
So for most of the time most of our boats have too much power to way too much power.
Seems odd to me that a triple screw boat would make sooo much sense here but ..... never heard of one.
OP
OP
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
Going back to Kevin's original post about big engines and how it enabled him to cross a body of water more quickly...
This thread has touched on some of the tradeoffs - fuel consumption, fuel capacity, engine room crowding, maintenance, et cetera.
But here's one more factor - water capacity. The Bayliner 4778 has two water tanks forward - 140 and 60 gallons (figures differ, but this is the gist of it). If Bayliner installed a bow thruster at the factory they relocated the 60 gallon tank, but if they didn't then adding a thruster eliminates that tank and owners are down to 140 gallons (plus the 18 in the water heater, though since you can't drain it you can't count that).
I posted yesterday about the water shortage in the Gulf Islands, and my wife just mentioned that email again this morning which made me think to add it to this thread.
So...planing boat, big twin diesels, every cubic inch utilized (4788 owners do crazy stuff like relocate holding tanks to get enough room to install another small piece of equipment - like a much needed watermaker!), and a water capacity that is - at best - 200 gallons. For a 3 stateroom boat. OK, an owner can install a watermaker (performing significant surgery in the process) but I dunno, watermakers are finicky and it seems like the vast majority of watermakers are "out of service".
Notwithstanding the need / desire to be able to go fast to cross larger bodies, time a tide change, outrun the other boats to the anchorage, whatever...the accumulated tradeoffs of the planing style boat are - collectively - not my preference. I get that some folks want to run fast to get to the destination, but - again, for me - I like the "getting there" as much if not more than the "being there". I'm quite content to putter along at 7.5 knots, working with current charts to pick a route that give me an extra .5 knots, not being overly worried about hitting anything, keeping the noise / vibration / fuel consumption / et cetera to moderate levels, watching to world go by and - if it gets a little boring - heck, I can read a book and look up every couple of minutes.
Then again, here in the PNW the boating is interesting. The topography is stunning. There are lots of other vessels on the water. The tides and currents and other challenges are engaging. I see vessels making long straight runs in areas with flat horizons (like the Gulf of Mexico) and I suppose that might be tedious. But I actually enjoy the journey and if I were to run faster (clearly an impossibility with my boat!) that wouldn't significantly improve my overall enjoyment.
On the other hand, my wife would prefer a Star Trek transporter...
Thanks for the post. The word prefer, speaks of preferences vs abilities. You prefer a certain style of boat vs telling me and the rest of the SD world our boats are incapable. Seriously thanks...
We have to remember when comparing passagemaker class boats with SD hull form boats that they have two very different intended missions.
The SD hull form on my Bayliner 4788 (and almost every SD hull boat I've seen), and everything else on the boat is sized for use in the open ocean along a coast line.
With 440 gallons of fuel capacity we can run at displacement speeds safely for over 600NM. If we want to cruise at 15 knots we can do that for somewhere around 300NM. Thats coast line running, and there is nowhere in north america out of our reach.
The boat construction is designed to take seas that are normally encountered taking advantage of weather forecasting which is accurate out to approx 72 hours. It is constructed strong enough to take peak seas that were not forecasted, if operated prudently.
The water tanks are as you indicated 200 gallons. Thats about four days for my wife and I, not trying at all to conserve. (we do have a watermaker though, and it does work because we use it regularly)
The fridge is sized the same. We eat allot of vegies and salads. We find that four days of produce fit in the fridge. The list goes on and on.
Thats because my boats mission is operation along a coastline within the accurate weather forecasting capability time frame. The boat is designed and built to hop from anchorage to anchorage, with port stops for re-provisioning.
A passagemaker has a different mission, that being longer term operation at sea. It should have the fuel, water, and provisioning capacity for extended journeys. It should also be built strong enough to withstand normal peak sea states since its mission is to operate outside of accurate weather forecasting windows. Its mission is to cross oceans, and also to provide extended time between re-provisioning.
Last edited:
Codger2
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,691
- Location
- US
- Vessel Name
- Circuit Breaker
- Vessel Make
- 2021..22' Duffy Cuddy cabin
I get a real kick out of this thread as over the years I've had (and most others have had) all kinds of boats. Big, little, big-fast, little fast, slow, mono & multi hull, etc. If you are a boat "nut" as am I, you realized that almost all were designed for a specific mission and the majority of them did it well! Big engines, little engines, no engines, etc. I loved them all. With me it wasn't about the particular type of boat I was on, but rather it was ALL about being on the water! Whether it was a surf board, jet ski, kayak or a 70 footer, if it
was on the water, I loved it.
(and still do!)
was on the water, I loved it.
(and still do!)And Refugio, while the Gulf Coast may be flat, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!!..
Flat can have its own appeal - a friend just spent a month on a sailing cat in the Bahamas:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 7,331
- Location
- Texas
- Vessel Name
- Floatsome & Jetsome
- Vessel Make
- Meridian 411
i get a real kick out of this thread as over the years i've had (and most others have had) all kinds of boats. Big, little, big-fast, little fast, slow, mono & multi hull, etc. If you are a boat "nut" as am i, you realized that almost all were designed for a specific mission and the majority of them did it well! Big engines, little engines, no engines, etc. I loved them all. With me it wasn't about the particular type of boat i was on, but rather it was all about being on the water! Whether it was a surf board, jet ski, kayak or a 70 footer, if it
was on the water, i loved it.
amen brutha!!!!!
I have loved every boat of mine as well. I guess the one I loved the least was a Cape Dory 25 sailboat. Pretty little thing. And nothing wrong with it. Just too small. ANd when you get your ass kicked in a 25 foot boat...you get it kicked...Properly!!!
Yo Baker - Been TOO Long without any of your famous-type gal picts! Any in the 25'/ Dory while getten asses kicked?? LOL
Moonstruck
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,276
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Moonstruck
- Vessel Make
- Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Thanks for modifying the picture, Walt. To me the second picture represents what cruising is all about to us. Gunk holing through the aqua green, clear waters of the Bahamas with the helm deck opened up on 4 sides. The nice breeze blowing through, and an occasional fish on the line. Stop about mid afternoon for a swim, and grill some fish for dinner. Then the boat swinging on the anchor with the breeze coming through the hatches all night. Others have their ideas of cruising, but this to us is about the best we are going to get.
One of the joys is taking a shower under the stars on the swim platform.
Last edited:
There are many triple screw boats. The majority I've seen have been IPS (excepting outboards where they're everywhere). Sea Ray L 590 is triple. Delta Marine has triples. Regal had a triple. Then many larger boats have triple straight inboards. There have been some designed at the outset to allow one to run conveniently on one, two or three engines. Using just the middle engine, when wanting to go at trawler speed. Trading off to the two outside engines for more speed. Bringing all three in for maximum speed. You don't see triples here simply because they're generally only on larger boats than most here.
I get a real kick out of this thread as over the years I've had (and most others have had) all kinds of boats. Big, little, big-fast, little fast, slow, mono & multi hull, etc. If you are a boat "nut" as am I, you realized that almost all were designed for a specific mission and the majority of them did it well! Big engines, little engines, no engines, etc. I loved them all. With me it wasn't about the particular type of boat I was on, but rather it was ALL about being on the water! Whether it was a surf board, jet ski, kayak or a 70 footer, if it
was on the water, I loved it.
I love all boats. Have been on boats from 17' to 130' and loved them all. And love tenders/RIB's, from 11'-20'. What about 40+ knots in an 11' RIB? Fastest boat I've owned was about 55 knots. Fastest boat I've ever been on was 90+ mph so about 80 knots. Slowest boat I've owned was WOT 25 knots, Cruising 20 knots. Slowest I've been on was a Charter that would do about 12 knots, cruise at 10. Oh have been on some slower sailboats. But I don't sail as such, just ride along with those who do.
You left out canoe, Codger. And pedal boats at the city lakes.
- Status
