Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-17-2022, 10:37 AM   #21
TF Site Team
 
Shrew's Avatar
 
City: Westerly, RI
Vessel Name: N/A
Vessel Model: 1999 Mainship 350 Trawler
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,160
27 and cruising the Caribbean. What you should be looking at is a blue water sailboat.
__________________
Shrew
/SHro͞o/
noun
1. A small insectivorous mammal resembling a mouse, with a long pointed snout and tiny eyes.
Shrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 10:38 AM   #22
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmanrox313 View Post
I do like the looks and layout of these boats but just from a quick search they seem a lot harder to find for sale unlike the GB. At least within my price range. Is there anything wrong with the GB?
As posted up-thread, there is a family of 4 cruising an older GB42 in the Caribbean right now. Have been doing it for well over 5 years and having a great time. They started in Florida, went through the Bahamas, and down through the islands and current in Aruba near Venezuela.

The KK42 is a good boat. Personally, I believe it's reputation as an offshore cruiser is overstated by endless onlime repetition. It's a comfortable boat and I too like it- I prefer sedan layouts to Pilothouse and trunk cabin layouts.

Your journey would be no different in a KK42 vs a GB42 assuming both of similar quality and equipment.

What will make a big difference in your cruising will be prior maintenance of the vessel, and whether it is stabilized.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 10:41 AM   #23
Member
 
City: Sarasota
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
To me efficiency carries with it a systems’ serviceability factor. Access, ER space, parts and supplies storage and range trump GPH in our book.

Then what is the mission? Water skiing, a fast cruise for one hour to an anchorage, crossing the Pacific etc are all possibilities. Budget considerations directly impact efficiency. Each of us have an efficiency quotient. Few are the same
I agree. I like space especially in the engine room, good fuel burn rate at 6-8kn mainly. I’m not trying to win races… just keep it somewhat affordable when I do decide to make a trek. A lot of my time will be spent living and staying put.
Hartmanrox313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 10:44 AM   #24
Member
 
City: Sarasota
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrew View Post
27 and cruising the Caribbean. What you should be looking at is a blue water sailboat.
And why is this? I don’t think age should have anything to do with it. And hosting guests is a lot easier with more of an open concept like a trawler. My time will be spent more in the bay anchored close to where I work.
Hartmanrox313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 10:48 AM   #25
Member
 
City: Sarasota
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
As posted up-thread, there is a family of 4 cruising an older GB42 in the Caribbean right now. Have been doing it for well over 5 years and having a great time. They started in Florida, went through the Bahamas, and down through the islands and current in Aruba near Venezuela.

The KK42 is a good boat. Personally, I believe it's reputation as an offshore cruiser is overstated by endless onlime repetition. It's a comfortable boat and I too like it- I prefer sedan layouts to Pilothouse and trunk cabin layouts.

Your journey would be no different in a KK42 vs a GB42 assuming both of similar quality and equipment.

What will make a big difference in your cruising will be prior maintenance of the vessel, and whether it is stabilized.

Peter
I agree. The GB has more of an open concept it seems which is something I like. Gives more room for activity, better when hosting guests, and makes it seem bigger than it is.
Hartmanrox313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 10:52 AM   #26
Member
 
City: Sarasota
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
Bumfuzzle.com are past circumnavigators in sail and moved to a GB42 Classic several years ago. A family of 4, they have been meandering the Caribbean ever since - currently in Aruba. They are good writers and photographers so it's pretty easy to scroll their blog posts. Several years ago they compared costs of sail to power (HERE) and said it was a toss-up.

https://www.bumfuzzle.com/always-another-horizon/

Personally, I think focusing too much on "efficiency" is missing the mark - once you're into displacement speeds, fuel difference between a single and a twin, or a modern common rail diesel vs an old-school natural (Perkins or Ford Lehman) will not be a major difference in your long term costs. To give some idea, a Willard 40 with a 130hp Perkins burns around 2gph @ 7-1/4 kts. Same hull with a JD4045T burns around 1.5gph at same speed. 25% more efficient, so your annual fuel bill is $3k instead of $4k. Cruising the Caribbean will, at a minimum, take an annual budget of $60k, probably more (perhaps a lot more depending on your lifestyle) . Fuel savings for an "efficient boat" is deminimus when displacement speeds are maintained.

What WILL make a big difference in your quality of life and success is active stabilizers. They are a game-changer.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Peter

EDIT - one other item I'd look at is range. Fuel can be expensive. Having the ability to be selective about fuel stops will save you more money than 'efficiency.' I picked 1500nm as a desired range, but could easily live with 1000nms.
This is all great information… thank you very much! I have spent the past day reading about the couple you lead me to. They also have a lot of great information. Thanks a lot. Seems like stabilizers can be a lifesaver.
Hartmanrox313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 11:06 AM   #27
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
A guy on CruisersForum is a fulltime cruiser in Florida and Bahamas (Sailorboy HERE). Seems to have a blend of anchor and a lot of marinas and some inexpensive/free town-docks. He has been tracking his monthly expenses for 6-years - all of them, including dental visits.

Now, his 6-years includes new sails, standing rigging, and a dinghy along the way. I think this is an honest portrayal. Around $51k/year all-in, including travel, gifts, eating-out, etc.

I took the liberty of summarizing his data; and making an assumption of how much incremental fuel he'd burn if he were on a powerboat doing the same style of cruising at same displacement speed. I assumed 2000 nms/year, and I assumed he motors 25% of the time so $1184/year in gas, propane, diesel covers 500nms of motoring; so a powerboat would have to motor an additional 1500nms. For fuel burn, I used OC Diver's recent estimate of 1500 gals/diesel for 4000 nm of cruising, or 562g for 1500nm. Assumed $5/gal.

So the costs for Power vs Sail go from $51.4k to $53.9k, or an additional 4.7%. That's it. Now, if you want to go faster than displacement speeds, the cost difference can get pretty crazy.

Now, I know putting a chart like this will spur many rotten tomatoes to be tossed. I challenge anyone to produce a better projection.

Peter

PS - interesting about the knit-picking on "Efficiency." Y'all know darn well what the OP meant. That said, surprised no one picked-up on what he meant by "Bluewater...."

Click image for larger version

Name:	Cruising Cost Compare.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	80.3 KB
ID:	132949
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 11:11 AM   #28
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmanrox313 View Post
This is all great information… thank you very much! I have spent the past day reading about the couple you lead me to. They also have a lot of great information. Thanks a lot. Seems like stabilizers can be a lifesaver.
According to David Kasten, noted Naval Architect, stabilizers do not make a boat safer, just more comfortable. Reason being is there are certain measurements that indicate a boat's ultimate stability. For example "AVS" is Angle of Vanishing Stability. In short, its the angle where a boat would rather keep rolling over versus return to it's upright position. Stabilization does nothing to change that factor. I personally think that's too narrow of a definition as there are personal safety issues where stabilization absolutely makes a BIG difference, but just so you know....."Lifesaver" might be a bit too enthusiastic a description (though in my case, maybe not as my wife would mutiny without them).

Good luck. Bumfuzzle did a few YouTube videos years ago that were great. Unfortunately, they are now blog-only.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 11:40 AM   #29
Guru
 
City: New England/Michigan
Vessel Name: N/A
Vessel Model: N/A
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 533
The old time proven adage that with nearly forty years surveying I have found pretty accurate is, ‘ that if it’s hard to get to it doesn’t get maintained ‘ . Exceptions of course but generally true

Rick
garbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 12:06 PM   #30
Guru
 
jungpeter's Avatar
 
City: Everett
Vessel Name: LIBERTY
Vessel Model: TOLLY 48
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocampus View Post
Several in use I can think of:
Fuel burn per pound moved at X SOG.
Distance traveled per gph at X SOG. (Takes into account lighter boats are easier to move)
Range per gallon at best engine rpm/load.

In general think longer, lighter, minimal parasitic drag, good gyradius and prismatic coefficient makes for a more efficient boat. What’s often not considered is propping and HP transfer. Variable pitch depending upon load can increase efficiency. Electric may have less transmission losses. Losses between engine/motor and shaft HP delivered can vary. This can account for some of the greater efficiencies of singles.
Hippocampus, with all due respect, coming up with meaningless metrics is easy. How 'bout "furlongs per fortnight"? But coming up with meaningful metrics by the ORIGINAL POSTER (OP) that suit HIS use model is the true issue in this thread.

I got a giggle out of the posters to this thread that immediately chimed in on THEIR choice of a boat that met the OP's metrics (a KK42). Early on in my ventures here in the PNW, I chartered one of those things. Compared to the overall cost of a week's charter, the cost of fuel was truly lost in the noise. So from that very limited and short sighted perspective of the true cost of boat ownership (reflected in the charter fee), the KK42 was "efficient". But my family and I were really disgusted in the overall experience, given the cramped living quarters, poor engine room access, and the absolutely atrocious roll, both underway, at anchor, and at the dock. It truly rolled our fillings out.

And "gyradius" as a consideration the choice of a coastal cruising powerboat? Seriously? OK, try this. Email Grand Banks Yachts and ask their naval architect what the gyradius is on a (for instance) 80's vintage GB42. I can feel their eyes rolling from here. This may be a pertinent design element when considering flume stabilization, or the latest Ocean Race race boat, but hardly for the perceived OP's use case. Ditto prismatic coefficient. The guy doesn't want to transport crude oil or other bulk cargo, but presumably travel easily and safely with friends and family. A skinny boat (presumably with higher prismatic coefficient than your typical GB) will be more "efficient". Well, fine. As long as you can live with the down sides, like excess LOA with attendant high moorage fees, living in a tube, and extremely limited design choices.

I don't believe throwing out for consideration such fourth-order design elements to an admitted new guy is doing him much service. And I stand on my statement that "efficiency" as a design element for recreational power boating is not only misused on this forum, but also disingenuous and a red herring for the uninformed.

Furthermore, it appears to me that the OP has fastened on a GB42, and is seeking affirmation from the forum. And his concern with the cost "...to fill the fuel tanks" indicates he has little understanding of the true cost(s) of boat ownership. If the cost of a tank of fuel is a concern for the OP, I hope he does significantly more research before he dives into this venture. I wish him the best in his endeavor.

Regards,

Pete
jungpeter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 12:18 PM   #31
Guru
 
jungpeter's Avatar
 
City: Everett
Vessel Name: LIBERTY
Vessel Model: TOLLY 48
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post

Now, I know putting a chart like this will spur many rotten tomatoes to be tossed. I challenge anyone to produce a better projection.

Attachment 132949
Hi Peter,

Well, I also tracked every single penny spent owing and operating my Canoe Cove 53 (including cost of money and depreciation) for 13 years between Mexico and AK. By the way, I did leave out my dental costs. And if I'd included my medical costs over those years, this number would have been increased an order of magnitude.

$317 for each and every engine hour accumulated in those years. Made my knees buckle and my eyes water. And made a typical weekend cruise round trip Everett to Tacoma (for instance) something like a $3800 venture. How's THEM apples for a useless metric?

Regards,

Pete
jungpeter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 12:26 PM   #32
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungpeter View Post
Hippocampus, with all due respect, coming up with meaningless metrics is easy. How 'bout "furlongs per fortnight"? But coming up with meaningful metrics by the ORIGINAL POSTER (OP) that suit HIS use model is the true issue in this thread.

I got a giggle out of the posters to this thread that immediately chimed in on THEIR choice of a boat that met the OP's metrics (a KK42). Early on in my ventures here in the PNW, I chartered one of those things. Compared to the overall cost of a week's charter, the cost of fuel was truly lost in the noise. So from that very limited and short sighted perspective of the true cost of boat ownership (reflected in the charter fee), the KK42 was "efficient". But my family and I were really disgusted in the overall experience, given the cramped living quarters, poor engine room access, and the absolutely atrocious roll, both underway, at anchor, and at the dock. It truly rolled our fillings out.

And "gyradius" as a consideration the choice of a coastal cruising powerboat? Seriously? OK, try this. Email Grand Banks Yachts and ask their naval architect what the gyradius is on a (for instance) 80's vintage GB42. I can feel their eyes rolling from here. This may be a pertinent design element when considering flume stabilization, or the latest Ocean Race race boat, but hardly for the perceived OP's use case. Ditto prismatic coefficient. The guy doesn't want to transport crude oil or other bulk cargo, but presumably travel easily and safely with friends and family. A skinny boat (presumably with higher prismatic coefficient than your typical GB) will be more "efficient". Well, fine. As long as you can live with the down sides, like excess LOA with attendant high moorage fees, living in a tube, and extremely limited design choices.

I don't believe throwing out for consideration such fourth-order design elements to an admitted new guy is doing him much service. And I stand on my statement that "efficiency" as a design element for recreational power boating is not only misused on this forum, but also disingenuous and a red herring for the uninformed.

Furthermore, it appears to me that the OP has fastened on a GB42, and is seeking affirmation from the forum. And his concern with the cost "...to fill the fuel tanks" indicates he has little understanding of the true cost(s) of boat ownership. If the cost of a tank of fuel is a concern for the OP, I hope he does significantly more research before he dives into this venture. I wish him the best in his endeavor.

Regards,

Pete
I'll push-back a bit on this post. Personally, I think the OP's desire for an efficient boat was pretty dang clear (who among us really thought 'efficency' meant anything other than fuel efficient???). But I really appreciate Hippocampus's point of view even though I don't understand it all (never heard the term "Gyradius" before). He brought an alternative approach with methodology to the table vs just an eye-roll/hurumph dismissal (or some variation of 'it depends').

Folks like Hippocampus elevate the conversation on TF. Since he joined, I see references to Beaufort Scale and CE Classification rating much more frequently, and associated discussions about yacht design techncical criteria. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but they usually force me to think a bit more, and I've learned a lot as the result of posts like his.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 01:29 PM   #33
Guru
 
City: New England/Michigan
Vessel Name: N/A
Vessel Model: N/A
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 533
I’m sorry but your analysis and assumption that the OP and others on this site could only interpret efficiency, as you stated below, certainly under estimates many members collective knowledge and experience.

Personally, I think the OP's desire for an efficient boat was pretty dang clear (who among us really thought 'efficency' meant anything other than fuel efficient???).

Hope I’m wrong

Rick
garbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 02:05 PM   #34
Guru
 
jungpeter's Avatar
 
City: Everett
Vessel Name: LIBERTY
Vessel Model: TOLLY 48
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
I'll push-back a bit on this post. Personally, I think the OP's desire for an efficient boat was pretty dang clear (who among us really thought 'efficency' meant anything other than fuel efficient???). But I really appreciate Hippocampus's point of view even though I don't understand it all (never heard the term "Gyradius" before). He brought an alternative approach with methodology to the table vs just an eye-roll/hurumph dismissal (or some variation of 'it depends').

Folks like Hippocampus elevate the conversation on TF. Since he joined, I see references to Beaufort Scale and CE Classification rating much more frequently, and associated discussions about yacht design technical criteria. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but they usually force me to think a bit more, and I've learned a lot as the result of posts like his.

Peter
Hi Peter. I appreciate your pushback. Each viewer on this forum has differing perspectives on almost every thread posted. And yes, some elevate the conversations, but many do not. In my opinion, as I hopefully stated with some degree of clarity in a previous post, posting of esoteric, obscure, and (usually) incorrectly applied information is, simply posting of red herrings that obfuscate the real issues confronting the Original Poster (OP).

An "...alternate approach with methodology"??? Sorry, but bandying about terms such as gyradius in this thread is simply BS. It's application to this thread is incorrect. I'm glad you learned something from his post. Personally, as a 45-year veteran in the marine design engineering field with directly related advanced education and experience ranging from nuclear submarines to autonomous underwater vehicles and multiple complex recreational powerboats, I did not. And while everyone has an opinion, and all are welcome to express them, I find some of them stinky.

And I feel for the poor OP. As a newbie, he's expressing (in a somewhat disguised and hidden fashion), what you have stated above (...who among us really thought 'efficiency' meant anything other than fuel efficient???). Well, in my world, "efficiency" means WAY more than fuel efficiency. I believe that pointing this out to the OP will have vastly more benefit to him than immediately jumping on the overused and little understood performance metric of "fuel efficiency".

In my opinion (IMHO), determining fuel efficiency is only useful to a powerboat operator when he's offshore, and trying to determine if he's got enough fuel reserve to make his next fuel stop. And secondarily, when he's doing voyage planning to determine distance between fuel stops. Other than that, it's a useless red herring, obfuscating other way more important metrics that should be used to select a powerboat. And metrics only the OP can select! Admittedly a very intimidating choice for a newbie.

Sigh. I thought long and hard about replying to the OP in the first place, as it seemed the typical cry to help someone crowdsource what CANNOT be crowdsourced-i.e. what boat to buy. And simply putting Blue Water in the OP's title doth not an offshore boat imply, when his use case states the Gulf and the Caribbean as his cruising grounds.

Regards,

Pete
jungpeter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 02:37 PM   #35
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
A guy, who is clearly getting his toes wet for the first time, gets on a forum - normally a very polite and accommodating forum - and asks for some feedback. Reminds me of the old saw about the guy who asks "what time is it?" Response is "here's how you build a clock."

Sometimes I wonder if the folks who toot their horn about decades of experience have forgotten how to learn, what it was like to be early in their boating experience where you haven't yet been given the secret decoder ring to specialized nomenclature. Sometimes it just sounds a bit condescending.

In a world where $5/g diesel is cheap, I think "efficiency" in the OPs context 95% means fuel efficiency. Sure you can beat a horse about the 5% outliers. But sometimes it just sounds like an excuse to bang out keystrokes and make oneself sound smart.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 03:02 PM   #36
Guru
 
City: NC
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
....
So the costs for Power vs Sail go from $51.4k to $53.9k, or an additional 4.7%. That's it. Now, if you want to go faster than displacement speeds, the cost difference can get pretty crazy. ...
Yep. People seem to forget that sailboats need running rigging, standing rigging and sails which are NOT cheap and do not last forever.

The Dashews, among others, long ago said that running a "trawler" was cheaper than a sail boat. The Morgans Cloud website has an expense spreadsheet that is very helpful and breakdowns the expense of operating a sailboat. A major expense for sail boats is sails and rigging, which are expendable, just like diesel.

Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 03:04 PM   #37
Guru
 
Mambo42's Avatar
 
City: Curacao
Vessel Name: Endless Summer
Vessel Model: 1979 Defever 49
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 664
Since I live in the Southern Caribbean I can give you a heads up. Whenever you plan to go to the Caribbean you can skip the Southern part. There are a few islands of interest, but the problem is that we have a very short, but high wave pattern here in the South Caribbean. It wreaks havoc on all boats and it is highly uncomfortable.
That said, you now know what to avoid, so you can focus on the interesting part. The Bahama's and even the BVI are definitely the interesting places to go to.

As for the type of boat ?
Like already suggested, a sailing vessel would probably be best for the Caribbean, mostly because fuel is not always readily available and if it is, you will be paying top dollar.
If you do take a trawler I would definitely want to have stabilizers onboard, but that is indeed mostly for comfort, not for safety. For safety you just stay on the leeway of all the islands and you should be fine............except when you enter the Southern Caribbean, then you will be in for a very rough ride (unless you go in September during the doll drums).
One thing to keep in mind is hurricane season. Usually you have a 4 to 5 day warning window, so I would definitely want to have a boat that can make speed to get out of harms way. When you find yourself in St Maarten and have to make it to Trinidad to get out of the way of a hurricane, but you only can do 5 - 7 kts..............good luck.

I won't give you advise on what boat to buy, that is a personal choice, I will just give you the practical side of it.

And forgot to mention..............a part that many people don't want to talk about, but it does exist. Nowadays crime has become heavier in the Caribbean which means anchorages are not really safe anymore. If you stay in the standard anchorages you put yourself in harms way, so be prepared.

In any case, the Caribbean is great to visit, I have been to most of the islands, was privileged to do so in my former job and I enjoyed every minute of it.
__________________
If you want sea view...........buy a boat !
Mambo42 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 03:11 PM   #38
Guru
 
jungpeter's Avatar
 
City: Everett
Vessel Name: LIBERTY
Vessel Model: TOLLY 48
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post

In a world where $5/g diesel is cheap, I think "efficiency" in the OPs context 95% means fuel efficiency. Sure you can beat a horse about the 5% outliers. But sometimes it just sounds like an excuse to bang out keystrokes and make oneself sound smart.

Peter
Hi Peter. I agree 100% that the OP has a concern about fuel efficiency. So, wuffo nobody provides some of those decades of experience via feedback that says "ignore this metric. It's meaningless except to those 5% outliers."

Then help the guy figure out how to adequately define his use case, and THEN select the parameters that make sense TO HIM. If that process reveals some misunderstanding about fuel usage in his context (doesn't want to break the bank when refueling, for instance), hopefully he'll be further along the road to understanding, and be able to select his own boat for his own best use.

And, expect to spend a significant amount of time "...banging out keystrokes." Personally, I've spent way too many keystrokes to date, certainly countering some ill-advised information sent his way via this thread.

Sigh. Scholarship via social media. Ain't it great??

Regards,

Pete
jungpeter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 03:18 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Mike Lowthian's Avatar
 
City: Toronto,ON
Vessel Name: Acadia ll
Vessel Model: CHB
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 107
Just listed my trawler, CHB 48' - $98,000. Go to:

Sovereignyachtsales.com

page 5 or 6
Mike Lowthian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2022, 03:27 PM   #40
Guru
 
City: Newport, R.I.
Vessel Name: Hippocampus
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 3,891
Not a NA but do a lot of reading and have had multiple discussions with pros(including NAsj who know a lot more than I and have been willing to share.
OP stated BWB and non specified efficiency. To my limited understanding in the absence of “cheats”like wave piercing bows with a associated decrease in reserve buoyancy a good gyradius will allow the hull to rise and fall with the waves. This presents less resistance and it fights less going through the waves. Keeping weight central improves “efficiency”. To my understanding beyond pitching flat is fast. Preserves laminar flow in the boundary layer. A boat that’s rocking or corkscrewing excessively will likely be less easily driven. This is before a stabilization system is applied. Even that system’s energy use will vary with boat design.
Totally agree “efficiency” is a meaningless term unless further defined. Assumed OP meant the total efficiency of the boat which as pointed out by several has multiple components. The hull, angle of the shaft, the efficiency of the engine and the transmission of its power to the prop, the prop, wind resistance, and multiple other factors.
Yes I’m a dilettante and proud of it. Enjoy when others correct me or add additional insights. It’s how you learn. There are many here more knowledgeable than me.
A GB is not a BWB in my opinion. You don’t need a BWB to get to the eastern Caribbean if you run the chain. If you’re doing a straight shot from mid Atlantic states or north perhaps you do. Was just trying to elevate the conversation and encourage an exploration of “efficiency “ from those more knowledgeable. Sorry if you find this objectionable. Look forward to comments.
Agree the OP was confusing. Think everyone has their own idiosyncratic definition of a BWB. There been threads trying to seek a definition. Think that’s even more difficult to define than efficiency. For me it means a vessel that can cross oceans self sufficiently and safely in conditions up to and including force 8 at the present time.For others it means all A rated boats. I have trouble with that as some A rated boats degrade in a short period of time and the rating applies to only when the boat is first launched.
I’m a newbie to power. When choosing between a AT and a NT did look at efficiency. Came to believe (not know) the NT is marginally more efficient in fuel burn and the AT has marginally more usable interior space. Do I know this? No, would need to find a AT the same size used in circumstances very similar to the NT over a sufficient period of time.
Sailors talk of a “days work”. How far you go in a day as a measure of efficiency. Bent elbows with a BCC owner. He was convinced his days work was much better than many larger craft. Bristol Channel Cutter are a heavy 28’ brick outhouse of a cutter with an excellent comfort quotient. He’d have more sail up longer as conditions worsened. Same with a GB or any SD boat. Many are noticeable more comfortable at non displacement speeds. Stabilization takes energy and usually increases drag. Here the FD hulls would seem to have a major advantage. Run in a narrow speed range with stabilization matched perfectly to the boat so run at their most efficient manner most of the time.
As regards the OP trying to get him to explore what he means by efficiency and why is it important to him. Perhaps in a clumsy way get him to reassess his priorities. Is it so important he’d be happier in a FD hull? Are the handling and redundancy of twins more important than the efficiency of a single. Don’t think just because someone is new to the cite you should assume they’re not thoughtful intelligent people.

BTW GBs are beautiful boats with a strong rep. Remember to include cost of refitting in your budget. Personally finding out what ever you think it will be it will be more.
Hippocampus is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
efficient, grand banks, ocean going., quality, trawler

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012