Dufour catamaran

[Bean Counter]

Also interesting is displacement calcs and for those few manufacturers that quote the CE number - thinking about the L450. It is quite a bit bigger than a Helia and more akin the the Sanya 47 and Dufour 48. The L450 carries more sail area, and therefor a bigger rig, probably in every dimension, also when you put bigger tanks, bigger generator, bigger engines, thicker anchor chain etc etc etc you can see why the weight grows easily by a couple of tonnes. So it would be interesting if that data ever becomes available what the bare hull weight difference would be (i.e no fittings, rig etc) to see if the big difference is actually in hull weight or what's put in/on it afterwards, I doubt we will ever find out.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

Also interesting is displacement calcs and for those few manufacturers that quote the CE number - thinking about the L450. It is quite a bit bigger than a Helia and more akin the the Sanya 47 and Dufour 48. The L450 carries more sail area, and therefor a bigger rig, probably in every dimension, also when you put bigger tanks, bigger generator, bigger engines, thicker anchor chain etc etc etc you can see why the weight grows easily by a couple of tonnes. So it would be interesting if that data ever becomes available what the bare hull weight difference would be (i.e no fittings, rig etc) to see if the big difference is actually in hull weight or what's put in/on it afterwards, I doubt we will ever find out.

Yes your are touching on some interesting points there beanie for sure. ie what is the ships weight actually made up of.

For example I could be wrong but my understanding of the lagoon being relatively more heavy is at least in part explained by the construction process ie the use of more drop in components like an assembly line

it keeps them cheaper to build but adds to finished weight considerably.

its weight that isnt adding to hull strength either vs say a more traditional build process that would end up being lighter AND stronger.

(dont worry tuskie im not bagging your lagoon - for all i know all the big 3 use this approach now to cut costs)

[Jim Cate]

those fuel capacity numbers are astonishing to me! Larger than many motor yachts of similar size, I think.

Maybe Kenomac was right, and these cats motor everywhere!

Jim

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

those fuel capacity numbers are astonishing to me! Larger than many motor yachts of similar size, I think.

Maybe Kenomac was right, and these cats motor everywhere!

Jim

Really? Can you name a 45' MY that carries less than 274 gallons of fuel? The range would be terrible!

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Really? Can you name a 45' MY that carries less than 274 gallons of fuel? The range would be terrible!

Perhaps you are right... I'm not really familiar with big mobos, but I still think 1000 litres of fuel are a lot for a boat whose primary propulsion is sails. Certainly more than most monohulls of the same size would carry, but I specifically did not want to get into that sort of comparison.

And range? I thought that displacement trawler type m/y were supposed to cruise with good fuel economy. Wouldn't the thousand litres give perhaps 4-500 miles?

Oh well, I don't belong in this discussion (I've been told) so carry on. I'll continue to be amazed at what I'm learning.

Jim

[Barra]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Perhaps you are right... I'm not really familiar with big mobos, but I still think 1000 litres of fuel are a lot for a boat whose primary propulsion is sails. Certainly more than most monohulls of the same size would carry, but I specifically did not want to get into that sort of comparison.

And range? I thought that displacement trawler type m/y were supposed to cruise with good fuel economy. Wouldn't the thousand litres give perhaps 4-500 miles?

Oh well, I don't belong in this discussion (I've been told) so carry on. I'll continue to be amazed at what I'm learning.

Jim

lol im thinking more like 1800 n miles there Jim (on single engine).

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by Barra

(dont worry tuskie im not bagging your lagoon - for all i know all the big 3 use this approach now to cut costs)

No worries, Barra! More than happy to have intelligent discussion about the pro and cons of all boats. I'll reserve my right to drop out if the discussion gets hijacked by those who bag ideas without giving any rational reason or alternative.

BTW, it's not just the big 3 that construct catamarans using "drop in" pre constructed components. Most production builders use this technique. Yes, it does make for a heavier build that is not necessarily stronger. The point is that (most of) these boats are actually designed by experts to be this weight AND carry a substantial payload.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

those fuel capacity numbers are astonishing to me! Larger than many motor yachts of similar size, I think.

Maybe Kenomac was right, and these cats motor everywhere!

Jim

Diesel fuel is also consumed on these sort of boats by large generators used to power watermakers, air conditioning and electric appliances. So not all is available for engine propulsion.

The "real cruisers" may scoff but I recently chatted with a sailor who was becalmed on passage between Panama and Marquesas. His 38 ft monohull had limited motoring range, that he wished to keep for emergency use, and no watermaker. Unlike some of our catamaran friends with miraculous sailing abilities, his boat would not sail in calm conditions. The passage took 62 days. He would have loved some of that diesel!

[PaulinOz]

Quote "Yes your are touching on some interesting points there beanie for sure. ie what is the ships weight actually made up of."

Why would any body actually want to know what a boat actually weighs?
What is actually included in that declared weight?
How much extra weight can add and still be within it's design specifications?

Where do I find an Irony smiley face to place here.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Quote "Yes your are touching on some interesting points there beanie for sure. ie what is the ships weight actually made up of."

Why would any body actually want to know what a boat actually weighs?
What is actually included in that declared weight?
How much extra weight can add and still be within it's design specifications?

Where do I find an Irony smiley face to place here.

I think the answer to all 3 questions is "everyone interested in boats"

you seem to have missed the point their sport (again)

[Barra]

Originally Posted by tuskie

No worries, Barra! More than happy to have intelligent discussion about the pro and cons of all boats. I'll reserve my right to drop out if the discussion gets hijacked by those who bag ideas without giving any rational reason or alternative.

BTW, it's not just the big 3 that construct catamarans using "drop in" pre constructed components. Most production builders use this technique. Yes, it does make for a heavier build that is not necessarily stronger. The point is that (most of) these boats are actually designed by experts to be this weight AND carry a substantial payload.

Yes they all use drop in pods to varying degrees. when i was last researching a new cat 6 years ago lagoon was the standout one amongst the catbuilders using it most aggressively and it showed in the weights but Im guessing the others have probably caught up given the way weights have ballooned.

Like you say as long as everything is designed for the extra weight this approach gives its ok - just the way the cost trade off has gone to meet the market demand for more "boat" for your money.

its also a bit circular as beanie was saying ie more weight = bigger rig and engines = more weight = even bigger rig

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Perhaps you are right... I'm not really familiar with big mobos, but I still think 1000 litres of fuel are a lot for a boat whose primary propulsion is sails. Certainly more than most monohulls of the same size would carry, but I specifically did not want to get into that sort of comparison.

And range? I thought that displacement trawler type m/y were supposed to cruise with good fuel economy. Wouldn't the thousand litres give perhaps 4-500 miles?

Oh well, I don't belong in this discussion (I've been told) so carry on. I'll continue to be amazed at what I'm learning.

Jim

FYI,

MY
46’ Nordhavn - 3800L
42’ Krogen - 2650L
37’ Mariner - 1135L

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by tuskie

Diesel fuel is also consumed on these sort of boats by large generators used to power watermakers, air conditioning and electric appliances. So not all is available for engine propulsion.

The "real cruisers" may scoff but I recently chatted with a sailor who was becalmed on passage between Panama and Marquesas. His 38 ft monohull had limited motoring range, that he wished to keep for emergency use, and no watermaker. Unlike some of our catamaran friends with miraculous sailing abilities, his boat would not sail in calm conditions. The passage took 62 days. He would have loved some of that diesel!

Originally Posted by tuskie

Diesel fuel is also consumed on these sort of boats by large generators used to power watermakers, air conditioning and electric appliances. So not all is available for engine propulsion.

The "real cruisers" may scoff but I recently chatted with a sailor who was becalmed on passage between Panama and Marquesas. His 38 ft monohull had limited motoring range, that he wish to keep for emergency use, and no watermaker. Unlike some of our catamaran friends with miraculous sailing abilities, his boat would not sail in calm conditions. The passage took 62 days. He would have loved some of that diesel!

Yeah, I'm simply out of touch with the usage planned for these boats. Running a gen set 24/7 does ramp up the fuel usage, and if that's how you use the boat, big tanks are required. Not my cuppa tea...

Re your becalmed pal: there are surely passages where calms may occur. Planning for such is part of one's cruising duties, and being sure that one has light air sails and a clean hull is pretty important on such voyages. dunno what happened in your example, for 62 days is longer than most who make that trip experience. I'm sure more fuel would have been welcome, but IIRC that passage is over 3000 miles and few sailing yachts of any hull configuration have that kinda range under power.

At any rate, I am still amazed at the fuel tankage on these boats. Appropriate for usage? Perhaps so, and it simply joins the reasons I do not want such a vessel myself. The successful sales of these boats proves their desirability to many folks, and my opinions mean little... as usual!

Jim

[rom]

@Jim: come on you know you don't have to use that vessel in any particular way, you know you don't run the genny 24/7 ! I have a L440 and I don't have a genset ! My alternators are even disctonnected about 330 days a year ! you and others are obviously searching for arguments to prove yourself you made a good choice. You choice suits you, perfect ! You are certainly welcome to participate a multihull forum but please try to say something useful/interesting ...

Now, 1040l of diesel on a L450 allows for about half a transatlantic crossing on a single engine should something go wrong (wind, sails, whatever). How cool is taht ? peace of mind !

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by rom

@Jim: come on you know you don't have to use that vessel in any particular way, you know you don't run the genny 24/7 ! I have a L440 and I don't have a genset ! My alternators are even disctonnected about 330 days a year ! you and others are obviously searching for arguments to prove yourself you made a good choice. You choice suits you, perfect ! You are certainly welcome to participate a multihull forum but please try to say something useful/interesting ...

Now, 1040l of diesel on a L450 allows for about half a transatlantic crossing on a single engine should something go wrong (wind, sails, whatever). How cool is taht ? peace of mind !

Maybe if you lose 1/2 the diesel and the associated 1000lbs you could sail in lighter winds!

Jim has a good point!

There is a tipping point where the law of diminishing returns takes over! It costs to carry that fuel 'just in case'.