Propulsion Cost: Sail vs. Trawler

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Personally, my hunch is that when it comes to exaggerating fuel burn, sailors are worse than trawlerites. Sure a sailboat has an efficient hull, but so does my Willard. Sailboats often have inefficient drivetrains with relatively steep prop angles, undersized engines, and props optimized to reduce drag.

I'm skeptical of vast majority of fuel burn claims. Even more so if owner is a sailor.

Peter
 
mvweebles the only fuel burn that sailors really care about is motoring through a calm until the wind arrives again. Optimum conditions for low fuel burn.
Often the main will still be up while they are "motoring". If it has good shape and full length battens it will add some lift even in next to no wind.
Trawlers give you their average, sailors their best.
 
Yeah I agree with darkside - also, sailers often motor *really* slow. 6kts to windward is pretty good compared to 8kts at 40deg true, so expectations are different. A lot of catamarans will motor with only one engine, too. Tankage is often comparably light even on bluewater boats, so such measures are necessary.

We would use about 15 gallons to get from SD to Catalina, in our 40' monohull which is 80nm (5.3nmpg). That's also into the prevailing current & swell. It would take 13 hours, lots of slamming. It sucked. Trawler takes 9-10hrs at 8kts and uses 40 gallons. Vastly more comfortable.

Darkside, you probably mentioned it in another thread but do you have estimates for efficiency for your 40' powercat?
 
This is the fuel burn of another 1200 fitted with common rail 270hp Hyundais. Ours has Yanmar 230hp with mechanical injection. Probably a bit less efficient.
Also ours is designed to draw 50mm more to carry the extra weight.
If we end up close to this I'll be happy.
Zfuel.JPG
 
This is the fuel burn of another 1200 fitted with common rail 270hp Hyundais. Ours has Yanmar 230hp with mechanical injection. Probably a bit less efficient.
Also ours is designed to draw 50mm more to carry the extra weight.
If we end up close to this I'll be happy.
View attachment 127752
Each or total?
 
Total.

Fuel burn on a trip for the first one with 170hp Hyundais.
https://www.kingfisherboats.co.nz/kingfisher-1200-displacement-powercat-at-show/

Thanks! 17.6kts at 2.2l/nm (1.7 mpg) is impressive. As is the ability to slow down to just under hull speed and get ~6kts at 1gph (6nmpg - about to what I quoted above for our 40' monohull sailboat).

It also convinces me that the 0.5lph at 9kts for the Herley 3400 quoted can't be right. The only way that could make sense is if they were draining the battery pack while the measurement was happening.
 
Going back to Newton we’ve understood the factors determining the energy required to move anything include
Inertia if changing velocity
Weight
Frictional losses

Hence for road vehicles anything that lowers weightand air resistance (and any other frictional losses) decreases energy requirements.
For boats going back to the Wizard of Bristol (Herreshoff) the same was understood so he got rid of Pb keels on recreational sailboats and drew multihulls. They were promptly made illegal for sailboat races.
Several decades ago NAs had access to a new set of building materials. That plus improvements in computer modeling of hydrodynamics caused a shift in paradigm. Hull design dramatically lowered parasitic (frictional) drag. Application of the new materials dramatically lowered weight (displacement).
Now efforts to decrease displacement (weight) and parasitic drag (frictional) losses is being revisited in recreational power boat design. Although this has been mainly in Al would not be surprised if CF baked prepreg isn’t to follow.
But final reality is efforts to decrease displacement and frictional losses decrease energy requirements during operation. With current technologies this means for a equivalent quality of life, range, comfort, and safety you go longer with less beam.
My Outbound 46 and my new to me Nordic Tug 42 have just about the same displacement. Same two staterooms. Same watermaker, heat and AC, refrigeration, electronics, sitting areas, entertainment etc. in short the same quality of life. Comments that sailors are roughing it are frankly ridiculous. The Outbound could safely go RTW. The NT can’t. The O46 is limited to hull speed unless surfing. The NT42 isn’t. The cost of ownership is about the same.
However the cost of ownership for the Dashew derived vessels will be dramatically less than traditional heavy displacement vessels with one exception. Berthing and storage. Currently area of the footprint is sometimes used by yards when calculating berthing/storage costs for multihulls but generally for mono hulls LOA is used. Given that to achieve equivalent quality of life the light long thin design requires 1 1/2 -2x the LOA of the heavy displacement design this is not a insignificant cost factor. It’s interesting to see vessels at equal to or less than 20m in berths and note the mismatch between slips and vessels.
Personally expect we’re at the beginning of a transition in cruising boat design and the yards will follow. Expect light long and thin driven by low HP or hybrid power will become dominant in new construction for recreational cruising boats. May start to see some fingers set up to be more appropriate to beams increasing number of berths in the same area. Hopefully those slips will cost less. Of course it’s a different calculus for ships( I.e. mega yachts). But even there as climate and cost factors continue to evolve so will design.
 
Last edited:
Personally expect we’re at the beginning of a transition in cruising boat design and the yards will follow. Expect light long and thin driven by low HP or hybrid power will become dominant in new construction for recreational cruising boats. May start to see some fingers set up to be more appropriate to beams increasing number of berths in the same area. Hopefully those slips will cost less. Of course it’s a different calculus for ships( I.e. mega yachts). But even there as climate and cost factors continue to evolve so will design.

I wish I could say I agree with you Hippocampus - that builders will evolve to long narrow boats, but I can't. The Dashew FPB has been around for 25+ years I believe and, with some minor one-off exceptions, hasn't really influenced anything else in the market. KK and Nordhavn have been around only a few years longer and have dominated the market with their pudgy lines and luxurious interiors.

I just don't see demand going past early-adopter for a long time. One example of niche: there's an old aluminum hull 60-ish foot Chris Craft Roamer in the yard here in Ensenada. The owner wants to go hybrid diesel-electric. He also plans to fit a kite for enhanced range. First, I admire anyone who brings an old boat back to life - too many projects die a paupers death and the boat is lost forever. But why someone would chose an old CC motoryacht to go green with is a head-scratcher to me. There is a market and someday it will have to go beyond niche. But I doubt it will be in our lifetimes.

Peter
 
A half gallon an hour is pretty typical for a medium size sailboat, say 30-40 ft.
A third of a gallon an hour is atypical for even a modest sized trawler, though.

I have a 33' sailboat with a 26hp diesel and a 26' "trawler" an 18hp diesel. The "trawler" weighs almost 6000 lbs. and I run it typically at 1800rpm which yields a fuel burn of .30 gallons per hour on average. Of course I could run it much harder and get it up to almost a gallon an hour if I chose but the gain of half to three quarters of a knot is hardly worth it. None of this however was actually the point of my original comment.
 
I just don't see demand going past early-adopter for a long time. One example of niche: there's an old aluminum hull 60-ish foot Chris Craft Roamer in the yard here in Ensenada. The owner wants to go hybrid diesel-electric. He also plans to fit a kite for enhanced range. First, I admire anyone who brings an old boat back to life - too many projects die a paupers death and the boat is lost forever. But why someone would chose an old CC motoryacht to go green with is a head-scratcher to me. There is a market and someday it will have to go beyond niche. But I doubt it will be in our lifetimes.


Proof of concept and prototype propulsion in larger vehicles (such as trains) has often been tested by refitting older equipment with new guts (and then if successful, a production package with a new body, etc. is often designed).



The propulsion system is probably hideously expensive already, so starting with a cheaper boat makes it a bit more affordable. Compared to contemporary fiberglass motoryachts, the big Roamers are at least a little lighter. Rip out the huge pair of Detroits and now you've got a bunch of space and weight to play with. Plus, it's an older boat that's stick built inside and not overly complex by modern standards, so re-doing the propulsion entirely isn't quite as daunting a task (or as expensive) as designing a new build to accommodate it.



Plus, maybe he just liked the classic motoryacht look.
 
Peter just hope we’re both vertical long enough to find out.
I look at the automotive industry when thinking about this. Especially the Europeans. Diesel has greater energy density than gas. Diesel cars were oh so common in Europe. Now Volvo, VW group, Fiat etc. are all dropping diesel and going to e. Some like Volvo entirely so. Even VW expects to be >50% e within the decade.
Here Tesla dominates but Ford is making a huge push to convert their fleet to e. They realize the tech companies and Tesla have a leg up but the e 150 should be marketed next year.
Paradigm shifts have a long build up but then occur suddenly. There was a long build up between Fulton and Spray going RTW because Slocomb couldn’t find a job on a sailing ship. Jouffrey built the first functional steamboat in 1774.
Think we’re in a similar moment in time. Yes Dashew and others were 3 decades ago. But that a very different world. Cheap fuel, no concerns about living in a disposal world. Less concern about globalism and self sufficiency.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could say I agree with you Hippocampus - that builders will evolve to long narrow boats, but I can't. The Dashew FPB has been around for 25+ years I believe and, with some minor one-off exceptions, hasn't really influenced anything else in the market. KK and Nordhavn have been around only a few years longer and have dominated the market with their pudgy lines and luxurious interiors.


Along those lines, how many FPB’s have been built. Maybe 15 or 18?

How many KK and ND’s have been built during that same time?

The market just isn’t interested as a whole in the long skinnies.
 
Along those lines, how many FPB’s have been built. Maybe 15 or 18?

How many KK and ND’s have been built during that same time?

The market just isn’t interested as a whole in the long skinnies.

No they are not. Quality and proof of design are not ultimately judged by manufacturing people or by engineers nor in this case by naval architects, they are judged by the market and customers. If people wanted FPB type designs you would have long ago had multiple builders start offering them and instead of sales in the teens, you'd have sales in the hundreds.
 
No they are not. Quality and proof of design are not ultimately judged by manufacturing people or by engineers nor in this case by naval architects, they are judged by the market and customers. If people wanted FPB type designs you would have long ago had multiple builders start offering them and instead of sales in the teens, you'd have sales in the hundreds.

As much as I love the FPB concept, I understand the limited appeal. There's an FPB64 that just showed up at our marina and while it's an impressive best, looking at it next to a similar price 64'... almost anything, it's pretty clear which one would be more comfortable under F8. The amount of usable exterior space is really really small.

I do love the Bestevaer MY's for something a bit less extreme but still efficient & rugged. https://www.bestevaer.com/yachts/motor/models/53-m-y. I hope we see more of them & the Artnautica style vessels being built.
 
As much as I love the FPB concept, I understand the limited appeal. There's an FPB64 that just showed up at our marina and while it's an impressive best, looking at it next to a similar price 64'... almost anything, it's pretty clear which one would be more comfortable under F8. The amount of usable exterior space is really really small.

I do love the Bestevaer MY's for something a bit less extreme but still efficient & rugged. https://www.bestevaer.com/yachts/motor/models/53-m-y. I hope we see more of them & the Artnautica style vessels being built.

The problem with the long and thing boats, is that for their size, they have limited interior volume. For that reason, I don't think they will ever be a big part of the power boat market. Having said that, the FPBs do have a fair amount of interior space compared to an LRC65, but not compared to a similar sized KK, Nordhaven, etc.

We have been messing around for the last couple of years in sail boats. Prior to that, we were focused on trawlers. Last fall we were in a marina, and at the other end of the docks, I saw a wee bit of the pilot house on a trawler. I could not believe what I was seeing and as we got closer to the trawler, it was what I thought it was, a Seahorse Marine 52 which we had not seen in many years. The thing that really stood out to me was the size of the boat. It was huge compared to a sailboat! :rofl:

The Bestevaer MY, they have a 65 now as well as the 53, are interesting boats for those who want a faster than displacement speed vessel and a boat that can handle many of the European canals.

The LRC 65 that is being built is going to have a hybrid drive. The problem with the hybrid drive is it's limited range and speed. BetaMarine in the UK as an interesting hybrid, https://betamarine.co.uk/he-hybrid-propulsion/, but its range with a 48v 200AH battery bank is 2 hours at 5-6 knots and I suspect that is in a calm sea state.

Having said that, the hybrid starts to make sense if one is traveling canals which have speed limits of 4, 6, or 8 kph. From the LRC 65 website, https://www.artnautica.eu/dieselelectric-lrcxpm

Based on a 33 kW battery pack, a 22 kW generator, an LRC58 would have approximately 20 nm of range at 5 knots. Under generator, one would continuously motor at 5 knots in most weather conditions or 8 knots in good conditions.

The LRC65 equipped with two of those motors reaches similar results as with one traditional diesel engine. The build costs of the hybrid LRC65 are comparable to the twin-engine LRC65 (Q4-2021). On sunny days the electric propulsion will drive the LRC65 at a modest but steady 3 knots on solar alone.
The LRC 65 can have 5-6KW of solar panels which is a game changer for power production. You really have more power than you can use, unless the power is used to move the boat. But is this really useful if one is in any sort of sea state? I think it is VERY useful for traveling canals but I question it's use in other conditions.

Later,
Dan
 
I wish I could say I agree with you Hippocampus - that builders will evolve to long narrow boats, but I can't. The Dashew FPB has been around for 25+ years I believe and, with some minor one-off exceptions, hasn't really influenced anything else in the market. KK and Nordhavn have been around only a few years longer and have dominated the market with their pudgy lines and luxurious interiors.

You'd never get me into a multi million dollar stabilised skinny boat either

For the similar coin I can have a considerably more spacious powered cat - no stabilisation required.
 
The hybrid also comes in handy for short moves, I'd think. If I were departing to head off to my next destination, but needed to run across the harbor for fuel and a pumpout before departing, I'd probably just make that move on electric power (especially if starting off at anchor to save the engine idling along while the anchor is retrieved) and then fire up the diesels on the way out from the fuel dock.
 
Yes Simi is correct. The secret to make long skinny hulls nice to live with is to have two of them joined together.
It isn't original thinking either. That's more or less how people crossed oceans for the last 3000 years or so down our way.
 
The hybrid also comes in handy for short moves, I'd think. If I were departing to head off to my next destination, but needed to run across the harbor for fuel and a pumpout before departing, I'd probably just make that move on electric power (especially if starting off at anchor to save the engine idling along while the anchor is retrieved) and then fire up the diesels on the way out from the fuel dock.

Yes, that is a hybrid use case, as is a short move from one anchorage to another for an expected weather shift.

The question becomes, how often does one perform these use cases, and is it worth the cost of the hybrid system? I think for the most part these use cases are not worth the expense of the hybrid system.

We really are interested in traveling in Europe in the canals. That is something that is not going to happen in a boat with a large air draft. Even the LRCs, with their low air draft, are not going to get into some canals, but there are still plenty that would be accessible. The hybrid use in the canals is something one would use quite a bit and would seem to make the system worth the cost.

The hybrid really starts to make sense when you see the low speed limits on some of the canals which would seem to be a problem for properly loading a diesel on an LRC.

With a full day of sun, even if only five hours of sun, it would seem that the LRC 65 hybrid could run eight hours or so, and end up they day with nearly charged batteries, as long as the boat speed is kept down, which is likely due to speed limits on some canals. It certainly seems possible that the hybrid could move the boat with very little, to no expense, for diesel fuel at least in the summer time. Winter would be a different story. :D

Later,
Dan
 
A fully electric catamaran ferry now in operation in Wellington.
278757881_5036506409751846_7802923098234343053_n (2).jpg
 
Phew - that's a serious bit of kit!
750v - and here's me wondering whether 48v is going to be ok!

More info:
The ferry can carry 132 passengers, Foote says.

The boat is 90 meters long, seven meters wide and has 5500 kilos of batteries onboard powering two electric motors that propel the boat, each motor has 325 kilowatts or 500 horsepower.

The boat easily matches a diesel, Foote says.

“We had an expected speed at probably 22 knots in light ship. And we got 24 and a half knots, so it's going a lot faster than we thought.

During our sea trials, we put the equivalent of 99 passengers on board, we had to of course use water because of Covid instead of people, and we got 22 knots.”

The batteries take a couple of hours to charge, Foote says. There is a charger in Eastbourne and one will be built at Queens Wharf.

They have devised a system to keep the batteries cool and operating optimally on board, he says, and there is no diesel backup on board.

“If there is a problem with one side of the boat, there's a computer system that enables us to shut the boat down safely on one side. So, being a catamaran with two propellers, all you do is just go to the shore using one propeller. “

Another big advantage of the boat is significantly reduced maintenance costs, Foote says.

“A normal diesel boat will do about 15,000 to 20,000 hours before you have to do a major rebuild on the motor, our boat does 50,000 hours and you change one bearing and there's nothing more to do, there's nothing to look at.”

What started as an idea for one boat has mushroomed, Jeremy Ward says.

“Partway through the process, we realised that we needed to build an industry, because we've had inquiries from all over the world.

“Almost every country in the world has approached us about whether we could help them to build some electric boats here in Wellington.”

The plan is to build a factory in Wellington, he says.

Electric is significantly cheaper than diesel, and Ward says payback for the approximately $9 million ferry will be in eight years.
 
The boat is 90 meters long, seven meters wide
Poor reporting

5500 kilos of batteries onboard powering two electric motors that propel the boat, each motor has 325 kilowatts or 500 horsepower.
And there be the killer.
5500 kegs of LFP would cost a very large number.
And to charge, a very large charging system costing a very large number
And I reckon there'd be a few tonnes of fowl a week in generating electrickery to feed them.
 
Last edited:
For good quality, 540kWh of LiFePO4 is around USD250k complete with cooling, BMS etc.
Chargers to run 20% to 100% in a bit over an hour around USD100K.
For a ferry you would want the chargers at both ends so USD200K.

Doesn't make much of a dent in USD9mill sticker price.
 
...
And I reckon there'd be a few tonnes of fowl a week in generating electrickery to feed them.

Well, they claim to have done a substantial study of viability which looked at the production cost (sunk cost but let's not use that for boats :smile:) and the ongoing electrical costs, including some fossil fuel electrical generation through the grid, battery recycling etc. Since someone(s) is/are putting their own money up, not gubbermint, I suspect they asked all the same questions that 99.999% of people on here have/would/will ask and - since they have built it - were very happy with the answers regarding cost and carbon viability (which is pretty important in NZ).

"tonnes of fowl" can highly processed fossilised fowls (diesel), or cute little electrons with sub-atomic feathers from solar or wind :D
 
We really are interested in traveling in Europe in the canals. That is something that is not going to happen in a boat with a large air draft. Even the LRCs, with their low air draft, are not going to get into some canals, but there are still plenty that would be accessible. The hybrid use in the canals is something one would use quite a bit and would seem to make the system worth the cost.

Wifey B: We were amazed how many rivers and canals were accessible by larger boats in Europe. I'd recommend starting with all those and not initially worrying about the canals you can't travel. Then rent a boat already on those canals if you still want to travel them. I would like one day to do some of them but it's slow and tedious travel and not something I'd want to spend an entire season on when there is so much more to see and experience. Meanwhile, so many places you can go and see in a larger boat. :)
 
Well, they claim to have done a substantial study of viability which looked at the production cost (sunk cost but let's not use that for boats :smile:) and the ongoing electrical costs, including some fossil fuel electrical generation through the grid, battery recycling etc. Since someone(s) is/are putting their own money up, not gubbermint, I suspect they asked all the same questions that 99.999% of people on here have/would/will ask and - since they have built it - were very happy with the answers regarding cost and carbon viability (which is pretty important in NZ).
I am sure they would have done but I would think the cost and viability would not make sense to the average user who does 100 miles a week

"tonnes of fowl" can highly processed fossilised fowls (diesel), or cute little electrons with sub-atomic feathers from solar or wind :D
Tonnes of coal that should have been ;)
Hate the keyboard on this new tablet
 
Dancc & BandB, if you would like details on the European canals then I suggest you buy my book 'Windmills & Wine' to help you.
Its available from Amazon books as either a paperback or e book. Type in, 'Windmills and Wine' By Geoff Woolley. There's lots of photos and maps which will help you.
I hope you enjoy it. a 5* review would be most welcome if you do.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom