from fuel hog to hyper-efficient?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
markpierce said:
Art, that's not very efficient. The 35-foot, 28,000 lb. Coot does about 6.5 knots running its single 80 h.p. JD 4045DFM70 at 1600 RPM using 1.3 gallons per hours, or about five miles per gallon. Just don't ask it to exceed 7.5 knots, however.
Click to expand...

My mind isn't into the math right now and don't have the power curve data on either engine but my best guess is the Coots Deere is putting out maybe 50 HP at 1600 rpm. Art's 350's won't see 255 HP at any less than 5500 rpm. Unless Art's engines have been rebuilt recently I doubt they'd reach rated HP output.

He's maybe 80 HP max on one engine at just over 2000 rpm. Still not nearly as efficient as the Coot, but a significant cost difference between powerplants and vessels too.

Sorry Art. A planing hull can certainly run more efficient at hull speed, but the displacement hull will still win the efficiency battle IMO. Nothing wrong with that though.
 
CPseudonym said:
My mind isn't into the math right now and don't have the power curve data on either engine but my best guess is the Coots Deere is putting out maybe 50 HP at 1600 rpm. Art's 350's won't see 255 HP at any less than 5500 rpm. Unless Art's engines have been rebuilt recently I doubt they'd reach rated HP output.

He's maybe 80 HP max on one engine at just over 2000 rpm. Still not nearly as efficient as the Coot, but a significant cost difference between powerplants and vessels too.

Sorry Art. A planing hull can certainly run more efficient at hull speed, but the displacement hull will still win the efficiency battle IMO. Nothing wrong with that though.
Click to expand...

CP - Seems correct in most you say... but... my twins are rated and proped at 4500 rpm for WOT. One was fully rebuilt 350 +/- hours ago and the other had topend rebuild at same time... its bottom tested to be in fine condition, the one needing full rebuild ate a valve!

Ya Gotta Luv Boating - Caus Ya Only Leave ONCE!
 
Art said:
CP - Seems correct in most you say... but... my twins are rated and proped at 4500 rpm for WOT. One was fully rebuilt 350 +/- hours ago and the other had topend rebuild at same time... its bottom tested to be in fine condition, the one needing full rebuild ate a valve!

Ya Gotta Luv Boating - Caus Ya Only Leave ONCE!
Click to expand...

Touche;) They should hit rated then if they are that fresh.

Bust Out Another Thousand, the acronym survives intact:thumb:
 
CPseudonym said:
Touche;) They should hit rated then if they are that fresh.

Bust Out Another Thousand, the acronym survives intact:thumb:
Click to expand...

I keep my green-back boat bucks in a fire proof safe! :whistling:

Yup - Both screws hit rated rpm... At WOT, 22/23 nmph... bout 1/2 nmpg is fuel usage rate; which equals = bout 44 gph. I do not hit WOT unless testing or dire need be, and then only for very short time span. At 16/17 knots the secondaries are not quite open... that's why she gets 1 nmpg at that comfortable planing speed. :popcorn:
 
Coot does about 6.5 knots running its single 80 h.p. JD 4045DFM70 at 1600 RPM using 1.3 gallons per hours,

Four! With the throttle pushed to the wall (2400 RPM). ... Ouch.

So that last Knot costs 2.7 gph EXTRA!

For the folks that keep on dreaming of cruising at theoretical "hull speed" , read the above a few times.

Hyper efficient can only come from a light skinney boat with proper power installed.

SO WHAT?

Any boat operated at SL 1 or so (the sq rt of the lwl) will be cheap to keep.

With really minor 6 K power requirements gas is far more efficient than an underloaded diesel.

A $5- $10K 36 Uniflite at 5 or 6 K will be a far better round trip than a custom built "hyper efficient" boat of any style.

Round Trip is buy it , fix it, use it and sell it.

The real cost of boating.

FF
 
FF said:
Coot does about 6.5 knots running its single 80 h.p. JD 4045DFM70 at 1600 RPM using 1.3 gallons per hours,

Four! With the throttle pushed to the wall (2400 RPM). ... Ouch.

So that last Knot costs 2.7 gph EXTRA!

For the folks that keep on dreaming of cruising at theoretical "hull speed" , read the above a few times.

Hyper efficient can only come from a light skinney boat with proper power installed.

SO WHAT?

Any boat operated at SL 1 or so (the sq rt of the lwl) will be cheap to keep.

With really minor 6 K power requirements gas is far more efficient than an underloaded diesel.

A $5- $10K 36 Uniflite at 5 or 6 K will be a far better round trip than a custom built "hyper efficient" boat of any style.

Round Trip is buy it , fix it, use it and sell it.

The real cost of boating.

FF
Click to expand...

Fred - :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: - - > Art :popcorn: :D
 
Allweather Boats

These boats have a lot more room than appears and are trailerable.

awpic2.jpg
 
It gets me how we equate our boating pleasure to how much we're not spending. Oxymorons we are.
 
Ben I'd forgotten about the AllWeather. Great boat but light and folly like the Albin. Doubt if the OP will find one for 10K though. Many of these posts have overlooked d the $10K budget and that makes them interesting reading at best.
Re running a planing hull like a Tolly or Uniflite they can come much closer to good efficiency sometimes if they are compared to a heavy FD hull like a Willard instead of a hull of similar weight. My Willard weighs 8 tons and many to most planing hull 30' long will displace half of the weight of the Willard and hence can come closer to the efficiency of the Willard but the Willard is not really very efficient. An efficient FD boat will do fine w 3 hp per ton of disp. By that rule I'd need onle 24hp and I can't even make hull speed w 37 or so. The 2 tons of ballast and other design features dictate that my Willard needs considerably more power than a FD hull designed for efficiency. Willy is powered at 5hp per ton.








Uniflites are heavy for a planing hull w wide chines and require more power than even other planing hulls. Nota good choiceforthe OP. Tollys are lighter and are considerably narrower at the chine so will be a better choice for efficiency. Not as stable and will pound more in a head sea but better looking and more efficient. One could make a fair to moderately good FD boat out of most planing hulls by changing the shape of the stern. Just cut out a good chunk of the bottom, Laminate in a big "V" shaped flat section and a full disp hull will be had. Add a keel. Repower w small diesel or diesels, install an appropriate rudder and a good trawler can be had. One can buy an old FG boat and small diesel well within the OPs budget. That's why I asked him how handy he was w FG work. Better see me or a Marine Architect about where to cut and what shape to give the converted boat. A boat w too much weight aft like a twin Z drive Uniflite is an excellent choice as this mod will reduce the volume below the WL considerably aft and reduce the weight aft as well. The new boat should handle better than the original boat especially w the bigger rudder. So not much money will be required but lots of laminating and wood/glass fabricating will be necessary. Many boats are much better suited for this mod than others. If anyone is interested in such a mod or project you should contact me for phone conversation or someone else that knows enough to have a good shot at success. I should add that if you do this to a boat it will NEVER be a 10 to 14 knot boat again. Like any FD hull it will be limited to hull speed or less.
 
Last edited:
manyboats said:
Ben I'd forgotten about the AllWeather. Great boat but light and folly like the Albin.
Click to expand...

All Weathers are, or were, made in Ferndale, Washington, a few miles north of Bellingham. Last I heard, which was a few years ago, they were pretty much out of business. However they do still have a website.

I have only seen one in person, when Carey and I were walking the docks in Friday Harbor. The design is interesting, essentially a sailboat-type--- but I recall that the build quality was pretty bad, at least judging from the workmanship on the superstructure and what we could see of the inside of the cabin. So my lasting impression of them is a great idea with poor execution.
 
Sorry I can't fix the big gap in my post on the i-pad. Don't think so anyway.

Art,
Sorry you don't understand this business about hulls but if one wants a FD boat changing a planing into the desired type or buying the desired type in the first place is NOT A DOWN-GRADE ..... But an upgrade. I know you think the Tollycraft is already so far up in heaven that it couldn't possibly receive a upgrade but the Tollys and any other boat is full of flaws and anything in the world can be improved. You like to talk about "bashing" and I pull up short of bashing my fellow TF friend (you) as I think you're a very good fellow and I'd like to retain both your friendship and our conversation.
 
Marin,
Nothing "sailboat" about the AllWeather. Pure powerboat as I se it. And there is so few boats of this type that one desiring such a boat would either not notice the less than stellar workmanship or buy it anyway because it can do certain things so much better than almost any other boat.
I saw flaws and faults w the Willard but there basically isn't another boat like a Willard so I almost had to buy it. Sometimes it pays to be normal or just to have normal needs and/or desires. Many more products are then available.
 
The frustrating thing about challenging Eric on hull designs is that he's almost always right. There can be more to efficiency than just the power and fuel consumtion and how well the hull does at slower speeds even if it's designed for higher speeds.

If the definition of hyper-efficient is taken to specifically mean fuel consumption, it may be possible to run a semi-planing hull at a very slow speed with very little fuel consumption. But as I've learned from Eric there is always a trade-off. Just because a semi-planing (or planing) hull can be run slowly and so use very little fuel doesn't mean all is wonderful. The handling may suck, the ride may suck, the directional stability may suck. The owner, of course, won't know or admit this. He'll think everything is just peachy. And if that's the boat one runs, one tends to thing that's the way things should be.

I had the opportunity to briefly drive a large, heavy, displacement, wood, single-engine converted workboat the other week up the north end of Vancouver Island. The water was smooth but where I thought it would be like driving a larger version of our GB, I was way wrong. That big boat rode and handled far better than our GB. It was more directionally stable, it tracked better, it rode better (albeit in calm-ish water). Granted, a somewhat apples and oranges comparison but I think the point is valid.

Running a semi-planing hull slow certainly works--- it's been the whole premise behind the Grand Banks line of boats since 1966. But I don't think it's as efficient--- in every sense of the word--- as a properly designed displacement hull.

Tollys, Uniflites, GBs, etc are great boats and well built to boot. But if slow speeds were all I was interested in--- and I mean slower than hull speed--- I would not choose any of these boats. At slow speeds in rough water they wallow with a snap-back roll that some people find uncomfortable, for example, due to their very flat aftersections and hard chines.

So I believe Eric is, again, correct. Far better to determine exacty what you want to do with a boat in terms of speeds, fuel consumption, ride, etc. and then select a boat with a hull optimized for your defined performance than buy a boat that's NOT optimized for what you want to do and make it do it anyway. It may work fairly well, but if "hyper-anything" is your criteria, best to match the hull to the desired result exactly.
 
manyboats said:
Marin,
Nothing "sailboat" about the AllWeather. Pure powerboat as I se it. And there is so few boats of this type that one desiring such a boat would either not notice the less than stellar workmanship or buy it anyway because it can do certain things so much better than almost any other boat.
Click to expand...

You're probably right about the sailboat bit. That was the term that was used when the basic hull form was described to us on the dock so that's the assumption I've been making ever since. In looking at the photos on their website, however, it reminds me more of a Navy motor launch than a sailboat.

I understand what you're saying about workmanship, but the workmanship on the All Weather we looked at was not "less than steller," it was downright bad. Even I, who know next to nothing about the manufacturing of fiberglass boats, could see that the thing was just badly made. Are they all this way? I have no idea. But based on the one I've seen, while I appreciate and like the concept a lot, I would never buy a boat of this design that was actually made by All Weather. It could be a great design to have someone else make, however.
 
manyboats said:
Marin,
Nothing "sailboat" about the AllWeather. Pure powerboat as I se it.
Click to expand...
We lived aboard a 27x8 sailboat for 3 years, have owned a 35' trawler, several outboards and now a 28x8 houseboat. The Allweather is a sailboat without a mast to me.
 
manyboats said:
Uniflites are heavy for a planing hull w wide chines and require more power than even other planing hulls. Nota good choiceforthe OP. Tollys are lighter and are considerably narrower at the chine so will be a better choice for efficiency. Not as stable and will pound more in a head sea but better looking and more efficient.

Eric

On east and west coasts, both off shore and in protected areas, I have run in various weather and seas with many types boat hulls. I have owned top condition 1977 34' Tolly tri cabin and 1973 31' Uni sedan... both with twin screw 350 cid 255 or 235 hp (respectively) gas engines in great condition. I still own the Tolly and am currently looking at a 36' convertible Uni for deep sea fishing. Different years and models and lengths of each manufacturer have different hull designs and superstructures and weights due to build-methods utilized per circa. The board-stroke negative input you seem to continually like to paint onto both these boat makes, it appears in attempt to divert others interest away from them, are IMO generally incorrect on many levels. But, simply being an owner and eager user of both these boat makes, that is just my first-hand-user opinion. This is also my opinion – Tolly and Uni are great boats! There are thousands of other boat-wise Tolly an Uni owners who agree! Didn't you say on some post you worked at Uniflite?? Maybe my memory is incorrect. I know you are quite learned regarding boats... but... I gotta ask - you ever own or much spend time aboard a Uni or Tolly, of any size or model? In other words, are you speaking from experience or conjecture? :confused:

Art :popcorn:
Click to expand...
 
I spent a number of years fishing in Hawaii on a friend's 28' Uniflite. Twin Chryslers with V-drives. We fished for ahi, aku, mahi mahi, ono, and marlin some 25-30 miles off the north shore of Oahu. Even on nice days the ocean was pretty rough and rolly. Our trolling speed was perhaps 5 or 6 knots as I recall.

This was the first "larger" powerboat I'd spent any time on so I figured that what it did was the norm. Then my friend had a 32' single engine displacement fishing boat built for him in Seattle and got rid of the Uniflite. I started fishing with him on the new boat and what an eye opener. Compared to the new boat, the Uniflite was rubbish. Horrible, horrible ride, directionally unstable, a total loser in that particular environment.

Now when we were inside Kaneohe Bay where Jim kept the boat the water was calm enough so we could put the Uniflite on plane. And then it was a great boat. Good, stable ride, tracked well, and so on. But in the open water outside the reef its ride, even at trolling speeds, was incredibly rough. So much so that one day it fell off the top of a wave that was on top of a swell and that planing bottom hit the bottom of the trough so hard it cracked a couple of hull stringers.

But we didn't realize how unsuited the Uniflite was for that kind of environment until Jim got the heavy diesel displacement boat. It rode and tracked like a Rolls Royce compared to the bouncy, jerky, pounding Uniflite.

So I agree with Eric. Pick the hull form to suit the intended purpose. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse no matter how devoted one is to the sow.
 
Last edited:
Albin 27 aft cabin is a great boat they are seaworthy and they have a pretty good range of power, the 120 hp was a bit over powered i thought but it's there if you need it. However we did change a older Bertram from 2- 6 cylinders to 2- 4 cylinder diesels It proved to be pretty easy and we were able to reuse alot of things and it went from a 30 knot boat to a 18 knot boat but fuel went from 18 GPH to 2.75 GPH. Opitions are the sky is the limit and the more you can do your self the better off you are keeping a budget in control.
 
Running a semi-planing hull slow certainly works--- it's been the whole premise behind the Grand Banks line of boats since 1966. But I don't think it's as efficient--- in every sense of the word--- as a properly designed displacement hull.

True , but a 15% efficiency loss at 6K , perhaps 3GPH does not break most 200 operating hour a year fuel budgets.

Even with another 20% loss from over sized twins at idle , the bill doesn't get bad.

SPEED is what costs big bucks.

3GPH to 4 GPH 33% efficiency loss so what?

40GPH at 14K , big difference!!

FF
 
FF said:
Running a semi-planing hull slow certainly works--- it's been the whole premise behind the Grand Banks line of boats since 1966. But I don't think it's as efficient--- in every sense of the word--- as a properly designed displacement hull.

True , but a 15% efficiency loss at 6K , perhaps 3GPH does not break most 200 operating hour a year fuel budgets.

Even with another 20% loss from over sized twins at idle , the bill doesn't get bad.

SPEED is what costs big bucks.

3GPH to 4 GPH 33% efficiency loss so what?

40GPH at 14K , big difference!!

FF
Click to expand...

EXACTORAMMMMMA!! :thumb:

If you want complete efficiency get a blow boat with no engine or better yet a row or peddle boat - to stay in good condition!

Let's See: 200 annual op hrs X 1 extra gal fuel per hour X $4 per gal = $800 extra per annum... that's approx $2 daily from your piggybank. If $800 per year breaks your bank... get out of boating, you're in over your head! :hide:
 
Last edited:
Art said:
If $800 per year breaks your bank... get out of boating, you're in over your head! :hide:
Click to expand...

True enough. Fuel is still one of the smallest segments of the boating cost pie chart. And running a semi-planing hull slow will certainly yield a reasonable cost savings even if the hull design is not optimized for this speed.

But the OP started this off by talking about "hyper-efficient." That pushes the discussion into a rather theoretical direction and is the requirement Eric has been addressing. Whether the goal is to save every penny possible--- which I agree is something of a "much ado about nothing" subject when it comes to cruising at slow speeds--- or if one wants a hull that simply performs at the maximum efficiency possible under the condition the owner wants to operate in the fact remains that the only way to achieve that is to have a hull that is specifically designed for whatever speed and water conditions one wants to operate in.

I think this applies as much to the upper end of the spectrum as the lower end. If one wants to go fast, then a hull designed to go fast as efficiently as possible in terms of hydrodynamics, drag, power requirement, etc is the best way to go. If one want to go slow, then a hull designed to do that as efficiently as possible is the best choice.

Compromises certainly work and they can work well. But they are still compromises which I believe has been Eric's point.
 
HMMMMMMMM

OP is in Alaska.

I aint seein any one here ( Eric ? ) understand that on this coast its not only an economy, performance, issue.

Ya need some ability for distance between available fuel stops. Twin gas just aint getting you far from home before you need fuel especialy with a uniflight ( yup owned one ) and or Tolly or any other semi gaser.

Just sayin.

Planning a trip around a daily fuel stop can realy bite into any percieved cruising economy.
 
Look up TAD Roberts NA and see "Yellow Cedar". This is a boat that looks much like an old Mathews but has an excellent FD stern. 38' X (I believe) 10' and a truly beautiful boat. She is powered by a 28hp diesel. That would burn .5 to .7 gph and is much larger than my Willy inside. Most sailboats are more efficient than trawlers and most full disp trawlers are still powered with 7 to 10hp per ton. Remember efficient is 3 tons per hp and very efficient is two. The only trawler I can remember w 2hp per ton is an 85' (about) wood trawler w a Gardner diesel. Tollies and Uni's are good boats ... Perhaps even a bit better than that but a FD boat is much better at those speeds.
 
That pushes the discussion into a rather theoretical direction and is the requirement Eric has been addressing.


Its simple math WHY there are no "hyper efficient" boats.

To gain better efficiency than the usual bucket with 3-1 L/B ratio,the boat must be at least 2x as long and preferably lighter, sleeker.

AS most folks use the simplicity of a slip the COST of the slip will be far more than any fuel savings on a 200hr a year boat.

The accomidiations of a water side cabin 45 ft long and 15 ft wide 2 or 3 stories tall will be vastly different from a 65 ft boat with 10ft beam (Marco Polo) and the extra 20+ft of boat slip will easily eat fuel savings.

Go cruising (no slip) and use a mooring ball when out of service and the numbers might work better.

FF
 
Let’s face it:

The efficiency that overrides all other efficiency concerns we are discussing consists of reduction in the amounts of annually expended $$$, Money, Cash, Dinero! ;)

So... In 2012 and onward, if you purchase a great, comfortable, well previously cared for used boat at $30K to $50K range, and its systems all are in real good condition, and you have low cost docking/mooring, and use your boat from 100 to 500 hours a year, and your boat burns 1 to 2 extra gallons fuel per hour at hull or sub-hull speeds, with engines that are relatively inexpensive to care for or replace. In comparison to a used boat that carries a price tag of $150K plus or minus, and costs more to dock due to its long sleek shape, and has engines that cost much investment to maintain or replace... Well there’s the solution – What’s the problem? Oh yeah – reduction in the amounts of annually expended $$$, Money, Cash, Dinero! ;)

If we were to bring in the costs for a brand new boat – well – that goes right off the $$$$ savings chart and is for a discussion by others. :hide:

Art :whistling:
 
Last edited:
NOW – Here’s a beauty “Elco” boat with great history. Talk about fuel efficiency! They just don’t build em like this any longer. If I were rich I’d buy it! Should stay listed on CL for a few more days. Don’t miss its pictures. Wishing you all a great 4th O’ July! I soon leave to spend four days out and about on our Tolly with 11 year old grandson aboard! :dance:

1929 38 foot ELCO CHARLES LINDBERGH HONEYMOON CRUISER - $79500 (sausalito)

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/boa/3118073321.html

Serious buyers only, this is a very special piece of history THIS BOAT IS LOCATED IN ISLETON, CA. 95641
1929 38 foot Elco Charles lindbergh Honeymoon Cruiser
Re-power in 1980 Diesel
140 gallon fuel capacity
New 12 v Electrical System New Batteries
60 gallon Fresh water
This boat is turn key
She has a lot of history and has been beautifully restored, rich interior and runs like a dream! She boast the Double Berth, not the twins as all the others. Her sister ship the Able Hand was recently for sale for 350,000. Below you will find some of her history. This is a beautiful Live aboard or houseboat as well!

After the summer of Charles Lindberghs flight, Charles decided that this would be the perfect way to ensure privacy immediately following his marriage to Anne Morrow and contracted Elco to build one for him.

With the help of some very discreet and cooperative Elco executives, Lindbergh purchased a 38' cruiser, had them change the two rear single berths into one double berth and had the boat moored along a deserted stretch of a Long Island Sound beach, in preparation for his wedding day.

The boat was commissioned and named "Mouette" and after the wedding ceremony Charles and his bride Anne, with the help of Elco executives who were in on the plot from the very beginning, made their way to the vessel. Charles and his new bride spent the next few days of their honeymoon in wedded bliss and absolute privacy.
Errol Flynn, the noted action adventure silver screen film star also honeymooned on his Elco under presumably much the same sort of arrangement.

This vessel is true "eye candy" While cruising you are sure to be the center of attention. Could well be considered for a donation to a museum as well!

Will entertain reasonable offers! We have quite a bit of documentation and stories of this beautiful vessel, put together in a notebook, for viewing. Much of the history is available online and in books
 
Art The Elco's are great old boats and quite efficient w ther'e soft chines, light weight and narrow beam but they are not full disp hulls and therefore fall short of TAD's Yellow Cedar ... Or any other good FD boat.
Thanks for posting the pics though. Elco's are great to look at always. The lines of the Elco's just scream perfection. Look at the stern of Yellow Cedar though and one can see how they move along on about 15 to 20hp. That's Efficiency!
 
There is an Allweather posted on craigs list seattle for $20,000 obo. They come up for sale very rarley.
 
I've got "hyper efficient" wired (pun intended). 80 nm for $0.39 in energy costs and it isn't a sailboat.

Combine this
img_131797_0_605f0da3d394a59c5686c5b41e74d1a4.jpg


with a 1/2 hp electric motor (375 watts)

and a PWM throttle control

add a dash of lithium and iron LiFePO4
img_131797_1_640ce575a701535dc4bb632eac99677c.jpg


And the results is a vessel that will travel 80 nm at 5.5 kt on $0.39 of fuel (based on $0.15 per KWhr).

With fickle winds, sailing doesn't always get you to the dock.
MOV02923 - YouTube
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hydraulicjump
Best Windows for Neah Bay to Astoria and Back at 7.5 kts
Replies
7
Views
619
Hydraulicjump
Hydraulicjump
C
New to Great Lakes Cruising and in Need of Guidance
Replies
20
Views
2K
Cartouche
Cartouche
S
Cruiser instead of Trawler?
3 4 5
Replies
140
Views
11K
psneeld
psneeld
S
Prop recommendation
Replies
5
Views
656
DNT99611
D
socalrider
Heat pump combo washer/dryer
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
socalrider
socalrider

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom