hey, "sip" this...

I was doing some research on the Great Loop this evening, and happened to come across an article with this sentence:

"Under the water is a slippery hull that a single, fuel-sipping 425-hp Cummins diesel drives to a comfortable 16-knot cruising speed (and 20.4 knots flat out)."

I think it is the first time I have seen the phrases "425 hp", "16-knot", and "fuel sipping" all used in the same sentence.

seattleboatguy said:

I was doing some research on the Great Loop this evening, and happened to come across an article with this sentence:

"Under the water is a slippery hull that a single, fuel-sipping 425-hp Cummins diesel drives to a comfortable 16-knot cruising speed (and 20.4 knots flat out)."

I think it is the first time I have seen the phrases "425 hp", "16-knot", and "fuel sipping" all used in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

Well, what's the sipage number?

16k, 15.8 gph

bluebyu said:

16k, 15.8 gph

Click to expand...

More like borderline chugging to me. Now half that number would be sipping.

My DD 6-71 450HP will drink 16GPH at 19Knts. So me thinks this Cummins is a bit of a gulper.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Trawler

Reminds me of a buddy that insisted that his 61 viking with twin 2400HP Mtu's wasn't that un fuel efficient. He said at the speed he likes he only burns 100GPH per side. I prefer my modest 5GPH

If you have more than a 3/8" fuel line, you ain't sippin.

Ted

I guess it is all relative; but when I hear about "sipping fuel", < 2-3 gph comes to mind. Amazing people can afford to operate boats with large diesel guzzling engines.

I love my 1/2 gph burn rate and 200+ nm range on slightly less than 20 gallons. I can spend more going to the movies with my family than a day trip on my boat. I've learned to enjoy the trip more than the destination.

There's a huge difference between a baby's sip and an elephant's sip! I prefer the baby sip.

It's all a matter of perspective. To us, that is definitely sipping. We're use to two to three times that fuel usage at that speed.

O C Diver said:

If you have more than a 3/8" fuel line, you ain't sippin.

Ted

Click to expand...

Now that says it all! I never thought of that quick and easy reference, the fuel line!

As I approached retirement, I was cruising along at altitude in the Learjet 60 doing 480 knots. I commented to my copilot that we're now cruising at 8 miles per minute and soon I'll be enjoying 8 miles per hour. He asked, "Well, is that boat 60 times more efficient?"

"Good question!!" So I pulled out my calculator and ran the numbers. They came out something like this...

Learjet 60: 200 GPH @ 480 Kts=2.4 NM/Gal

Californian 34 LRC: 3.1 GPH at 7.5 Kts = 2.4 NM/Gal

It was hard to believe that the largest Learjet had the same fuel efficiency as my slow trawler! I explained that I also get to enjoy my boat 24 hrs a day, even if the engines are not running. In the Learjet, we never enjoyed our time aboard when the engines were not running!!

So I guess it's all relative, but sometimes the time saved or the weather avoided by a fast run is worth every extra penny spent on the fuel. It's nice to have options, something my current boat does not afford me.

FlyWright said:

Learjet 60: 200 GPH @ 480 Kts=2.4 NM/Gal

Californian 34 LRC: 3.1 GPH at 7.5 Kts = 2.4 NM/Gal

Click to expand...

Now how about comparisons on purchase price, nav equipment, maintenance costs and the like?

dwhatty said:

Now how about comparisons on purchase price, nav equipment, maintenance costs and the like?

Click to expand...

Not to mention the cost of jet fuel versus diesel. Oddly, it is less for jet fuel vice low sulfur diesel.

Fly-what kind of anchor do you put on a Lear?

hey, &quot;sip&quot; this...

THD said:

Fly-what kind of anchor do you put on a Lear?

Click to expand...

Wheel chocks

gwkiwi said:

Wheel chocks

Click to expand...

That's it....or a hangar! In nice weather, we'd chock it. If in doubt, it got hangared. Never once remember tying it down like lighter aircraft. Come to think of it, I don't think it's got tiedown rings.

Some places would provide a hanger for $50-75 for the night. Other places would gouge us for up to $500 for a heated hangar in the winter! Ouch...I hated paying that!!

seattleboatguy said:

I was doing some research on the Great Loop this evening, and happened to come across an article with this sentence:

"Under the water is a slippery hull that a single, fuel-sipping 425-hp Cummins diesel drives to a comfortable 16-knot cruising speed (and 20.4 knots flat out)."

I think it is the first time I have seen the phrases "425 hp", "16-knot", and "fuel sipping" all used in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

For most if not all of us North and South American MV owners the annual volume of fuel burned represents a small % of boat ownership costs. Let us cheer on the 15 or more GPH users knowing they are the ones keeping the marinas, boat repair places, builder's yards and marine development business going. Those of us burning less than 5 GPH cannot sustain the marine industry as we know it.

Sure, sipping fuel is good for bragging rights, but only for a very small group of us. Today's engines and hull designs allow one to sip fuel on a SD 45 - 55 footer or blast it out to a comfortable 16 knot cruise. Sounds good to me, Tony Fleming, Nordhavn, Doug Zurn, Tad Roberts, Sam Devlin and a large group of other MV builders and NAs.

sunchaser said:

For most if not all of us North and South American MV owners the annual volume of fuel burned represents a small % of boat ownership costs........Today's engines and hull designs allow one to sip fuel on a SD 45 - 55 footer or blast it out to a comfortable 16 knot cruise.

Click to expand...

(I'm getting tired of defending my Yanmar 440s.)

N4712 said:

Reminds me of a buddy that insisted that his 61 viking with twin 2400HP Mtu's wasn't that un fuel efficient. He said at the speed he likes he only burns 100GPH per side. I prefer my modest 5GPH

Click to expand...

I was going to use the same reference. A buddy had a 68 foot viking with the same engines. 180gph at about 38kts.

It's all relative!!!!

sunchaser said:

For most if not all of us North and South American MV owners the annual volume of fuel burned represents a small % of boat ownership costs. Let us cheer on the 15 or more GPH users knowing they are the ones keeping the marinas, boat repair places, builder's yards and marine development business going. Those of us burning less than 5 GPH cannot sustain the marine industry as we know it.

Click to expand...

What would help the marinas, boat repair places, yards, etc. is increased boat ownership among the masses. I was reviewing siomewhat dated stats from the National Marine Manufacturers Association and excluding PWCs, US boat registrations have been relatively flat since 1990 or so (despite increasing population). The average power boat owner is almost 10 years older than they were in 1998. Industry volume in 1965 was roughly 300,000 and was a mere 139,000 in 2010. Fortunately, it appears sales have increased in recent years but we very much need more boaters on the water and that will only happen when we see the income gap close.

sunchaser said:

For most if not all of us North and South American MV owners the annual volume of fuel burned represents a small % of boat ownership costs. Let us cheer on the 15 or more GPH users knowing they are the ones keeping the marinas, boat repair places, builder's yards and marine development business going. Those of us burning less than 5 GPH cannot sustain the marine industry as we know it.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that. Mark up on fuel is a great deal lower than most other services. After the 2008 crash, most marine operations changed their profit points to services and dockage as fuel consumption by volume dropped by up to 80%. While fuel sales represent a significant dollar volume, dockage represents a higher gross profit by percentage and volume.

Ted

I'll tend to agree with both of you on marinas and fuel. The nature of marinas has changed over the years and is split among many types.

Destination or tourist marinas make a large amount of money from fuel. By that I'm referring to areas like the Bahamas or Grand Cayman. Places where people fuel away from home. Some coastal marinas get the benefit as well, but many of those customers fuel before starting on the trip and then when back home. Fueling a boat with 10,000 gallons is very profitable.

However, marinas at home areas, less so. The reason is that those filling the tanks of larger boats and needing 5,000 gallons and above are 90% probable to use fuel trucks. I hate it for the marinas, but we live in Fort Lauderdale and the only time we've ever purchased fuel at a marina here is when we went through an entire fuel supply in sport boat in one day. 500 gallons and above has all been fuel truck or fuel barge. So many of those marinas are thrilled to get the fuel sipper when they do need to fuel.

At one time the difference in price between a truck and marina was $0.20 - $0.30 per gallon. Today it's over $1.00. Fuel deliveries by truck is becoming commonplace in more and more areas.

The other trend in certain areas has been for most marinas to not offer fuel and the petroleum company fuel at one marina or dock. The majority of city marinas also don't offer fuel.

O C Diver said:

If you have more than a 3/8" fuel line, you ain't sippin.

Ted

Click to expand...

I wonder what size fuel line this guy runs?

...

I'm happy with low fuel-consumption and its relative low cost compared to ownership. Taking the boat out has little cost consequence (at less than two gallons of fuel per hour.) Repeating myself: going boating doesn't cost much more than I am already spending not taking the boat out. Besides, the engine is "happier" the more frequently I work it.

CPseudonym said:

I wonder what size fuel line this guy runs?

View attachment 38527

Click to expand...

Geez! I'll bet Moonstruck is envious!

CPseudonym said:

I wonder what size fuel line this guy runs?

View attachment 38527

Click to expand...

This is definitely contra-trawler where the whole concept is to have full living accommodations without having a large fuel bill while transiting.

markpierce said:

This is definitely contra-trawler where the whole concept is to have full living accommodations without having a large fuel bill while transiting.

Click to expand...

I'm still willing to bet his fuel bill is small compared to the rest of his annual operating expenses. I couldn't afford to pay it but then neither could I tote the note on that thing either. Sure is purdy though up on plane.

Above one knot below hull speed becomes expensive, and to some, wasteful. That's not so much me. I say, enjoy you're money but prioritize.