twin vs. single engine rages on....

My daughter drew this drawing last night just before going to bed. * She is 7 1/2. *I now know where she stands on the single vs. twin engine debate! *

Tony, now that we have that settled, maybe we should start a thread on the "chicken and egg" debate!

*

PS:* Still haven't heard from you on that other thingy.

Don, what other thingy? I haven't gotten any messages? I see here the forum says I have a new Pm but it won't let me see it. Email me directly at Anthony@WatermarkMarineGroup.com

I see she also uses a stern anchor! That should wake up Eric.

-- Edited by Giggitoni on Friday 25th of November 2011 10:34:37 AM

-- Edited by Giggitoni on Friday 25th of November 2011 10:36:06 AM

I've never anchored off the stern but I've thought about it to reduce the sailing. My opinion on twin screw is well established. The only reason I'm posting now is that gig was talk'in about me. I usually do'nt post on a thread about something I'm not interested in like TV on boats or "how should I remodel my FB". It's hard to talk about twins on TF because so many manufacturers put double the hp in twins or/and half the hp in singles. Many times I've said how stupid that is/was and the fact that most here on the forum ca'nt conceive of a boat model where a twin and single engine versions where both have the same amount of power talking about it becomes impossible. Another aspect of this is that in 1975 a 240hp trawler was quite appropriate marketing wise but now probably most would want a 120hp boat. And I think a 120hp 36' trawler is much more appropriate design wise (now) but what I think is actually ideal would be a 36' trawler w a full disp stern not unlike my Willard w a 55 to 75hp engine. But things in life are not always as we think they should be especially if one is trying to be basically or mostly an independent thinker. When I was looking for another boat last winter and when I looked at boats like 36' GB's and like boats I NEVER considered the twins because of the weight and fuel consumption. That's ironic in that it's the 36' singles that I had proclaimed to be bastard designs the year before. But if you consider twins and singles that have the same amount of power I'd say the twin is definitely the more desirable boat. To the extent that it's almost a dumb question.

There are so many issues that should be discussed ad nauseum from this picture, such as:

Twin vs. single
Diesel vs. gas (black soot exhaust)
Power vs Sail
Bow vs. stern anchoring
Pilot house vs. flybridge
All Chain vs Combo rode
Vertical vs. Horizontal tipping when painting
Contrasting color bottom paint vs matching color bottom paint
Boat name placement: Bow vs Sideboard

This one picture could keep us arguing all winter long!!

haha *..FlyWright I just settled the twin/single question so what do you think of gas v/s diesel?

ad nauseum ....wazzat?

Should'na said that. Do'nt mean to hijack the thread.*


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 25th of November 2011 01:54:07 PM

nomadwilly wrote:
Another aspect of this is that in 1975 a 240hp trawler was quite appropriate marketing wise but now probably most would want a 120hp boat.

Click to expand...

Then explain why just about every cruising boat--- at least semi-planing one which is what makes up the bulk of the production market these days--- has factory-fitted engines of 210, 300, 375, 425, etc. horsepower.* I don't think anyone in the market for this kind of boat considers 120 hp to even be viable anymore.*

Not saying it isn't--- your position on power is essentially correct I think.* But in terms of the market for new boats, despite the economic downturn, which for the most part has not severely impacted the people in the market for a new cruising boat, more power is still better and that's what the manufacturers are supplying.


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 25th of November 2011 02:10:06 PM

Boats are marketed for the 98 percent of boaters who don't know any better...* Boat stores are filled with things that are for the 98 percent who don't know any better....

psneeld wrote:


Boats are marketed for the 98 percent of boaters who don't know any better...

* Boat stores are filled with things that are for the 98 percent who don't know any better....

Click to expand...

Hmmm. That explains why 98 percent of the crap I buy in the boat store 98 percent of the time is marked-up 98 percent. On the subject of twins vs. singles though, I feel secure with my single about 98 percent of the time, but if a deal on a diesel outboard came up (rare in the States), I might build a bracket for it when I do the loop or Bahamas. The few I've seen look a bit heavy for a dinghy.

-- Edited by healhustler on Friday 25th of November 2011 03:26:46 PM

Marin,

That's easy to explain. How much do those boats you're talking about cost? Anybody that can afford to buy them can easily afford to pay for the fuel and builders are advertising "go fast - go slow". But all slow boats are good at only one speed if they are good at any speed. So as long as boats are sold to wealthy and ignorant people stupid boats will prevail. Nordic Tug could optimize their 32 for excellent fuel economy and good seaworthyness in following seas but they do'nt go there because they know that boat would have limited appeal. So it's marketing but once the boats get 30 yrs old and are in the hands of people that only make $50K a year the're really not suitable designs unless one only runs 50 hrs a year.

nomadwilly wrote:So as long as boats are sold to wealthy and ignorant people stupid boats will prevail. Nordic Tug could optimize their 32 for excellent fuel economy and good seaworthyness in following seas but they do'nt go there because they know that boat would have limited appeal. So it's marketing but once the boats get 30 yrs old and are in the hands of people that only make $50K a year the're really not suitable designs unless one only runs 50 hrs a year.

Click to expand...

All true except for one thing, and that is your assumption that new boat buyers are ignorant and stupid.* As we've discussed before, the people I've talked to in Bellingham who have bought new boats like GBs and Nordic Tugs with a lot of power did so for a very specific reason--- they wanted to be able to get to places like Desolation Sound in no more than a couple of days, then they wanted to be able to putz around up there at slow speeds for a week or two, and then they want to blow back to town in no more than a couple of days.* That's what their schedules allow and having a go-fast, go-slow boat permits them to enjoy the places they want to go in the time they have available to go there.

You are corrrect that when the value of the boat drops to the point where one of the 99% can afford it, they may not be able to afford the fuel bill, or afford to run the boat the way the original owner did because of the big engines.* But if I was a boat manufacturer, the number one thing I would be concerned with is selling that boat new to somebody, and the last thing I would* care about--- in fact I wouldn't care about it at all---* is what happens to that boat 30 years from now.

So you are applying a valid theory to people to whom your valid theory is irrelevant.* It doesn't mean they're ignorant* and stupid, it means they have totally different priorites in boating than you do.* And, from my observation, their reasons for what they do are every bit as valid as yours are to you.

Fighting the three-plus-knot ebb tidal current today in Mare Island Strait, I was only able to make 4.5 knots over the bottom while*making hull speed.

I'm in a 30+ year old boat now . . . (with 52 hp). I guess I'll need to enroll in Singles Anonymous for recovery.

Marin wrote:--- they wanted to be able to get to places like Desolation Sound in no more than a couple of days, then they wanted to be able to putz around up there at slow speeds for a week or two, and then they want to blow back to town in no more than a couple of days.

Click to expand...

*That's pretty much my philosophy at present.

I get a real kick out of those who love the small engines in their boats. They are always talking about how little they burn at 6-7 knots. Here is my carefully calibrated table of what my Cummins 330B does with my 8 ton* boat. If I run it at 6-7 knots like some of you do, my fuel burn is way down.* I choose to run it at 2000rpm as that is where the engine is the happiest and according to BoatDiesel's prop calculator, if I change the prop I could go even faster!

As a former sailor, it doesn't seem natural to exceed hull speed.* Seems like cheating.

Walt, if you don't exceed 1600 RPM, I'll be able to keep up with you.

markpierce wrote:
As a former sailor, it doesn't seem natural to exceed hull speed.* Seems like cheating.

Click to expand...

*Really?* To me it doesn't seem natural to go that slow across the water.* It seems like I'm being cheated.

30 mph vs 8 knots.* I'll take the photo on the left every time no matter what the boat size.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 25th of November 2011 11:12:36 PM

Mark, for comparison, what's your fuel burn at 1600 RPM?

Al, I estimate around 1.5 gallons per hours.

Marin wrote:
*Really?* To me it doesn't seem natural to go that slow across the water.* It seems like I'm being cheated.

30 mph vs 8 knots.* I'll take the photo on the left every time no matter what the boat size.

Click to expand...

*Doesn't feel like "trawling" to me.

Walt,

You're going 2 knots faster than me but burning 4 times as much fuel. GPH is like rent to me. Costs X amount to cruise per day. A weeks cruise costs 7X. And if I could afford it I'd run your boat at 8 knots too. But at a gallon an hour I can basically cruise however much I want. By the way Willy is 8 tons too. I looked at several Island Gypsies and intended to run them at 7 knots. Prolly would have burned about 2.5 gph. But if I could I'd have a boat about 26 feet designed for 12 knots on about 55hp and would burn about 2 gph.

Marin,

I guess I was a little hard on new boat buyers. Fact is they've basically got little to choose from. Most all the boats available have big wide and deep submerged transoms suitable for 15 knots and almost never get run that way. I think it would be better if people bought planing hulls that actually wanted to and intended to travel over hull speed. A 36' planing hull probably goes 10 or 12 knots better than a 36 GB. If you're going to go over hull speed my mind says why even get a trawler? I'm say'in a planing hull goes 8 knots better than a trawler goes 12 to 15.*

Mark I'm for all the "cheating" I can afford.

nomadwilly wrote:*Most all the boats available have big wide and deep submerged transoms suitable for 15 knots and almost never get run that way.Mark I'm for all the "cheating" I can afford.

Click to expand...

*Mmmm.... you'd be surprised.* Most of the newer GBs we see out on the water, and there are a lot of them down here, are doing at least ten knots and most of them tend to be going twelve or thirteen or even more.* And of course all the big semi-planing boats like Bayliners and such are thumping along at two-digit speeds.* It's been my observation that the people who have the power in their boats use it.* We certainly would if we had it.

markpierce wrote:

Click to expand...

*Doesn't feel like "trawling" to me.

We didn't get into boating to imitate a fishing boat.* We got into it to go places as fast as we were willing to spend the money to go.* Unfortunately we are not willing to spend the money to run a cruiser at 15-20 knots.* But we would if we were willing to absorb the cost.* Maybe soon, though......

Marin, that's the second time you've hinted you are about to come into substantial money. Have you figured out a way to make sure you win Powerball, plan to rob a bank, planning to knock off a rich relative whose will you know you're in, or about to get a promotion and huge fat rise in Boeing. Sorry to be so cheeky, but yah got me intrigued.....

PS, I promise not to tell anybody - my lips are sealed...


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 26th of November 2011 06:37:08 AM

All I know is that 90 percent of the boaters I know that own 13 foot whalers to 55 foot motor yachts use their boats less because of fuel costs...maybe 100 percent.* In the old days..people used their boats less because of time constraints...now it's because of fuel.* Even fishemen aren't running and gunning to get to fish anymore...just don't want to pay the fuel bill.

Many of these people still would buy high powered boats because it they didn't...they wouldn't be able to use their boats to their liking.* They wouldn't be able to get where they wanted to go in the time alloted...even the ones who only go 10-15 miles to destinations for a nice lunch or dinner...they don't want to make it an all day trip.

So manufaturers are really still providing the public what they want...otherwise they certainly would be out of business...hmmm...tho many are...but there's another topic.

The only raeson I say most boaters are ignorant ( note I never said stupid)...is most really don't know much about hull design, hull speed, better efficiencies, planning around current shifts, anchoring,**etc...etc...they have never needed to in a lifetime of THEIR way of boating.*

Most of us on here probably do...because we chose that path...but we are in the vast minority.

markpierce wrote:
Walt, if you don't exceed 1600 RPM, I'll be able to keep up with you.

Click to expand...

*Mark:

That's my point! Even with the bigger engines, if I slow down, I can buddy boat with my sailor friends. My speed options, (little as they are) however, allow me to react better to conditions, time, weather, etc.

If you really give a lot of thought to what Marin's desires (speed) are, a faster boat (say mid teens) makes a lot of sense. Look at what Don Moon is doing in his 25 knot Sabre or Carey does in his lobster boat. Their weather windows can be much smaller than ours because of their higher cruise speeds but they can still slow down and smell the roses.

Nope, I favor bigger engines (single or twin) and the resale is better. (believe it or not) Although fuel consumption is touted so often on this Forum, time is just as important but doesn't get the press fuel usage does.

Don't mistake having money to pay for*excess fuel with being ignorant about boating. It just depends on your frame of reference and game plan. Locked in at hull speed in the CA delta seems a waste of good time whereas going at hull speed to Hawaii from the Delta makes a lot of sense. It is OK to burn fuel for fun and pleasure whether at 1.5 or 150 gph, it is just money - a truly disposable item according to the EU, Athens, Rome, Lisbon*and Washington financial/political gurus.

Tom wrote: " Locked in at hull speed in the CA delta seems a waste of good time " Seems to me there's no great distance to go there so a slow boat would be ideal. Slower boats also have a slower and more pleasant motion and as I recall breezy conditions and a steep chop is common in the Delta. Willy would be quite happy there but her 3 1/2' draft may not be ideal.

Eric, there are about 1,000 miles of navigable waterways in the California Delta. Every year I visit new places. Our GB draws 4'-2" and we never have too many problems. However, we move with caution and keep a vigilant eye on the depth sounder!

-- Edited by Giggitoni on Saturday 26th of November 2011 02:25:07 PM