Efficient Blue Water Trawlers

mvweebles said:

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

View attachment 132949

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

mvweebles said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

mvweebles said:

....
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. ...

Click to expand...

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

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.

mvweebles said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Just listed my trawler, CHB 48' - $98,000. Go to:

Sovereignyachtsales.com

page 5 or 6

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.

Lots of opinions for the OP to consider. What he needs to do is look at a number of boats to decide what works for him. Fuel efficiency is important for range but frankly I think most of us would grant that it isn't the biggest expense in boat ownership . If fuel costs are the most critical issue then go sailing.

Cost of maintenance, moorage, etc are directly related to size. So while a bigger boat may be more comfortable you pay for that with higher maintenance and moorage costs. There's no right answer but don't buy just the biggest boat you can find then then discover you can't maintain it. The boat I can afford to buy is far bigger than the boat I can afford to own. I'd recommend buying the boat in the best condition you can find. You'll pay a premium for a boat that's been refit and upgraded but generally it is far cheaper in the long run.

Single vs twins. There is a comfort in the redundancy of twin engines, plus for single handling the boat is more maneuverable. But keep in mind that driveline maintenance costs double plus the shafts and props are more exposed to damage (no keel protecting them). Frankly if I were in 'open water' I'd want some type of redundancy.

Legend

GB 36 C………..Amazing yacht for sale. KK website.

If you can afford it get the KK. If you are not certain you will be doing Blue Water Cruising, the choices are endless.

Perhaps you can shed a little light on your finances. It is not typical for a 27 year old who works at a marina to be able to afford a 42 foot KK. The cost of owning such a vessel in Florida could easily exceed $2,000 a month, thats before you ever take it out and are not making payments on it. If you earn less than about $20.00 per hour that $2,000 will be EVERY penny you earn.

pete

I think simplifying all of these if you are attempting to determine “efficiency” most boats the only number that stays constant will be the number of hours you can run at “cruising speed”. The cruising speed being the key factor in fuel burn and sometime in range. If you are willing to cruise 7 to 8 knots in a 40ft displacement hull you will probably average 100hrs of run time. Could be more or less depending on fuel carried and 1 or 2 engines. But start with that concept and work from there looking at different boats.

Twin for sure. Build yourself a fuel polisher yourself. Inline separate tanks and transfer from one to another. When needed.
Best to you
Ours, Trawler 48 ft.

Slowmo said:

.

Cost of maintenance, moorage, etc are directly related to size. So while a bigger boat may be more comfortable you pay for that with higher maintenance and moorage costs. There's no right answer but don't buy just the biggest boat you can find then then discover you can't maintain it. The boat I can afford to buy is far bigger than the boat I can afford to own. .

Click to expand...

Yes, no, maybe.

Bigger boat may not need a marina as it's big enough and comfortable enough to stay out cruising - 6 years for us and never been in a marina.

Huge saving there which more than offsets extra maintenance expense

Check out the Diesel Duck in the For Sale section. Nice engineroom and very economical.

Hartmanrox313 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with GB's in general. Our last boat was a GB.

HOWEVER, the title of your thread is "Efficient BLUE WATER trawlers".
IMHO, "Grand Banks" and "BLUE WATER trawlers" do not belong in the same sentence . . . .

Not saying a GB can't cross blue water, heck, people have crossed the Atlantic in row boats, but not me.

Pete Meisinger said:

If you can afford it get the KK. If you are not certain you will be doing Blue Water Cruising, the choices are endless.

Perhaps you can shed a little light on your finances. It is not typical for a 27 year old who works at a marina to be able to afford a 42 foot KK. The cost of owning such a vessel in Florida could easily exceed $2,000 a month, thats before you ever take it out and are not making payments on it. If you earn less than about $20.00 per hour that $2,000 will be EVERY penny you earn.

pete

Click to expand...

Pete,
You are seriously out of line on this post. The O.P.'s personal finances are none of your business and he obviously is too nice a fellow because he should of told you to go pound sand.
HOLLYWOOD

hollywood8118 said:

Pete,
You are seriously out of line on this post. The O.P.'s personal finances are none of your business and he obviously is too nice a fellow because he should of told you to go pound sand.
HOLLYWOOD

Click to expand...

Absolutely!