Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[Polux]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

If someone bakes cookies and is passing around the basket, and we each take one, but you decide you can take 20 for yourself because you are hungary. Maybe now there are none left for the next person. Maybe next time, no one bothers to make cookies anymore for anyone.

Designing and promoting powerboats, is like telling everyone they should take whatever they want.

Finally someone that see is the way I see it, except that in what regards long range cruising on the trade winds is not 20 cookies instead of one but 30 or 40 that is about the difference in consumption a FPB 78 makes for a sailboat with about the same living area.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Polux

IT IS ABOUT THE DASHEWS STOPPING PROMOTING AND BUILDING LONG RANGE HUGE CRUISING MOTORBOATS.

It is about stopping a business, not about their personal life.

Are you going to stop the sports fishing business a well?

A few cruising motorboats is nothing compared to the fuel burnt there. Why not set your sights a little higher?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by conachair

Are you going to stop the sports fishing business a well?

A few cruising motorboats is nothing compared to the fuel burnt there. Why not set your sights a little higher?

Might be good for the fish stocks..

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Polux

The engine manufacturer gives about 30 liters hour for each of the engines at cruising speed. That gives 60 L/hour.

I know several professional skippers of big yachts with 60ft and over, none of them wastes nothing compared to that. Normal consumption at cruising speed is much less than that, for instance:

Sunseeker 70
1550 HP MAN engines
1500 RPM = 18.3 knots and 51gph = 399 miles range (best mpg)

That gives 193 L/hour at almost the double of speed.

but that is an unfair comparison because bin what regards interior space the Sunseker 700 is 2 or more times bigger than the FPB 73.

But that is not the point. These type of boats or sport Fisher's are used in short coastal trips and don't do many hours on the engines and have a relatively small autonomy. For instance the Sunsekeer 70 has a range of only 383nm.

These yachts are designed to go from the marina to a nice anchorage and back of from one nice marina to another and that is the way owners use them.

The FPB are boats designed for long range cruising and to circumnavigate, not to go from marina to marina or from the marina to a nice anchorage.

On an average circumnavigation, that on a FPB 78, due to the superior effective speed (regarding a sailing boat), can be made on one year or if slowly on one year and a half, that boat will burn 180 000 liters of diesel.

A typical an 8 year old Sunseeker with 72/70ft have about 800/1000 hours on the engine, some with less than 400 hours. If we consider 900 hours has average we will have a fuel consumption for 8 years of use of about 173 700.

Note that while the Sunseeker 70 is a luxury boat the FPB is a long range cruising boat.

I don't like luxury motorboats and I think that the pollution they make as well as the fuel they burn is socially unacceptable in what regards a huge ecological footprint made by very few, a hugely disproportionate pollution.

But the FPB, due to the different characteristics of use it is designed to perform (long range cruising) ends up to make a footprint as big or bigger than a luxury motorboat (for year) and that while cruising.

I cannot endorse or support someone that sees as the best boat for long range cruising a boat that leaves such a footprint.

Cruising should be as ecological as possible and if it is defensible coastal cruising on a motorboat with a moderate consumption, long range cruising is not, even on one with a moderate consumption that due to the big distances to cover ends up to have a huge overall consumption.

Originally Posted by Colin A

On that post as I recall the 78 foot model burned 33 liter an hour combined on both engines at 10 knots. For reference on coastal boats the last 75' sport fish I was on burned close to a 1000 liter an hour at cruise (30 knots) and ran between FL and New England yearly As well as 20-30 tournaments a year.

https://www.setsail.com/fuel-burn-ra...gin-for-error/

Their figures show a much lower fuel burn

"Now some numbers. Along with our data on the FPB 83*Wind Horse*and the first three FPB 64s, there is lots of info on fuel burn on the web for trawler yachts, some of which we have included here for reference. Lets start with*Wind Horse.This data is for full load. Over many thousands of miles, with full fuel tanks at the start refilling at the end, we have run at 11 knots for between 6.7 and 7.3 gallons per hour. Adverse sea states cost us on average about 15%. If the breeze is behind us, that helps by five to 15%. We do not need to run a generator at sea, but the electrical loads supplied by DC alternators, still take power from the engines, and therefore burn fuel (but less than a genset running 24 hours a day)."

This is somewhere around 27 litres per hour for an 83 footer doing 11 knots. Much better than most motorboats. Still pretty horriffic, but their is not much about the lifestyles of the obscenely rich that isn't a gross waste of resources. At least the FPB' attempt to maximise efficiency.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

That point about respecting choices is key here. You know the Dashews to be thoughtful and intelligent and no argument here on that. But what you're hearing is that at least some people who measure footprints do not respect a choice that has such a big footprint. .

You have stated that you eat meat and dairy.

Do you know that one-third of the world's fresh water goes to livestock, which overwhelmingly feed people in the first world. Raising livestock causes vast amounts of water pollution. 14.5% of world carbon emissions relate to livestock. But this grossly understates the climatic effect of meat and dairy -- methane is 21x more potent as a greenhouse gas, than CO2, and cow farts are the largest anthropogenic source of methane. The single most environmentally harmful thing which people do is not burning diesel fuel or petrol, but eating meat and dairy.

Power boats are not even a drop in the bucket, not even a drop in the ocean, compared to livestock. People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. I have not (in this case) done the math, but if you do it, I'm sure you'll find that a few years of your own, of one person's meat and dairy consumption has resulted in more environmental damage than all of Dashew's efficient power boats ever made and put together. And you did not do all that environmental damage by having a fabulous, once in a lifetime adventure -- which you are presumptuous enough to begrudge power boaters -- but just in eating a stupid diet which is harmful to you.

I am on a fully vegan diet, but I don't go around saying nasty things to people because they choose a different diet, no matter how harmful I know it is. That is because arrogant nastiness -- besides being nasty -- has no beneficial effect. The only effect of such behavior is to give nasty people an excuse to be nasty while feeling morally superior; what it does to the interlocutor is to turn them off. I've converted dozens of people to veganism, but I do it by example, by answering questions, and by feeding people's curiosity, and letting them come to it by themselves. Also, by simply feeding them incredibly delicious vegan meals. In short, with respect, and with kindness. Never by arrogantly cataloguing the damage they do (as if I don't do damage myself, in other ways), or showing them videos of the horrible cruelty suffered by livestock, as if they are personally to blame. We all do plenty of things which are harmful to ourselves or to others. We have no right to go around disrespecting other people's choices.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

That point about respecting choices is key here.

Yours is at least an honest and clearly stated perspective.

I live in the first world. My elderly father refuses to fly and will never get to see an iceberg. He would love to, but has shrunk his footprint because he has bothered to think about it. It's offensive to efforts like that to see such spoiled first world thinking as seeks to justify massive burns for optional leisure.

Yes, that is exactly one consequence of the position you are taking. You say that your father does not fly - but do you? You should not if this is in fact your position. You should very very certainly not fly ANYWHERE at all for pleasure, and most probably not even for business given how serious you think this is . . . . and arguably not even for life saving health treatment - since you would only be saving one life while putting the entire planet population at risk.. . . . that is only one consequence of your position - do you live up to it?

But what you're hearing is that at least some people who measure footprints do not respect a choice that has such a big footprint.

But do you respect someone who goes around in an Oyster 80? I really cannot imagine why you would. Sure it is a small contributor,
but it is still an entirely voluntary frivolous contributing decision to this super serious issue.

If the answer to why it's ok to emit so much is that there was no other way for a senior citizen to go to the ice, then I'm afraid the answer is that they don't get to go.

Yes, one position is for society to stop people from doing such things. We as a society have not (yet) decided to do that (generally).

There is an interesting sort of parallel question in bicycle racing at the moment. If you have a medical condition (like asthma) , which can be treated with a drug/inhaler which has minimal but some possible performance enhancing capability, should they be allowed to race, or should they be prevented from racing (if they have to use that drug). Currently they are allowed to race.

I personally respect both sides of this discussion so long as both sides #1 walk their talk and are not hypocrites, and #2 are intelligent and informed and respectful. Dashew clearly meets my criteria - he went to the dark side (and yes do please realize he is explicitly uncomfortable with power boating but made an informed rational decision to do so), and he did what he set out to do. I am uncomfortable with people trying to enforce their moral judgement on others if they dont meet those two criteria.

Boat alexandria does seem to also meet my criteria on the other side of this issue.

With you and Polux, it is not clear to me if you really walk your talk. Do you really not fly anywhere ever? How small is your personal foot print really and how big is your contribution to 'fixing' the planet? Unless you are making a tiny footprint and a massive personal positive contribution, I question whether you should be "throwing stones in a glass house".

...........................

[Bigmarv]

Dockhead: I said I minimise meat and dairy - I don't live alone and need to feed others who I don't impose eating habits on. Is your message meant to be ironic, because it came across as arrogant, preachy and sanctimonious, and I think I know enough about food footprints not to need your help. Perhaps stick to your area of expertise in making Sundeers plane upwind.

Estar: all good points. Yes, I walk the walk personally and in my work. It's a good life actually, and I don't whine when I walk or ride or wait for wind, and I certainly would never switch on the donk to keep up averages for boasting purposes like some promoters of their boats do. Don't see the cycling analogy though. This is genuinely existential and what we do affects each other, not like some cycling race. It's uncomfortable for Dockhead who posted in that other long thread about his fantasy boat with big engine and engine room and who thinks crusing under sail uses nearly as much fuel, but it's true. These decisions aren't ones of personal perspective where each is legitimate. choosing to do this stuff is a moral decision now.

Estar 2: you'll have views on how the Dashew boats sailed upwind and in the light. Dockhead says they are miracles that match a Swan 60 with 12' draft. Could he be right and all of us so wrong?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Finally someone that see is the way I see it, except that in what regards long range cruising on the trade winds is not 20 cookies instead of one but 30 or 40 that is about the difference in consumption a FPB 78 makes for a sailboat with about the same living area.

Do you eat meat, Paulo? Dairy products? How many "cookies" do you suppose that is, compared to some motor boater? Hint: it's a really big number (read this: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-wo...919932136.html). Did you choose to live so far away from your work, that you have to drive there or use mechanized transport? Do you fly on airlines? What makes you think that you have the right to count other people's "cookies"? Maybe you should be counting your own instead.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Dockhead: I said I minimise meat and dairy - I don't live alone and need to feed others who I don't impose eating habits on. Is your message meant to be ironic, because it came across as arrogant, preachy and sanctimonious, . . .

"I don't live alone and need to feed others" -- so, you have your own circumstances, and expect kindness and understanding from us, for the environmental damage you do from your diet. But you have no kindness and no understanding for, say, the sailor who's now 80 years old and frail or whose knees have given out, and whose only dream is to make one more Atlantic crossing -- prime candidate for one of Dashew's power boats (and the other candidate is the guy who switches from a Nordhavn and ends up burning 5x less fuel).

There is no more need to eat any meat or dairy at all, notwithstanding what people around you are eating, than there is to use a power boat, and using any kind of boat for a great adventure is a far more noble endeavor. And anyway, any family members can be easily weaned off it with the right kind of respectful inspiration.

But the harm you do to the environment through your diet is none of my business, and I've never even mentioned my own diet on this forum before. I'm mentioning it now only to make a simple point -- those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones at other people's glass houses.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Dockhead says they are miracles that match a Swan 60 with 12' draft. Could he be right and all of us so wrong?

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Re-read the post. Sundeer 64's (the only kind I have sailed) go well upwind, similar, I said, to a Swan 90 I spent weeks on, not the 60. The early Frers 90 is more of a cruising boat, as is the Sundeer. The Swan 60 is a powerful racer/cruiser with SA/D of over 30 and almost 4 meters of draft. Obviously it goes upwind better than the Sundeer. But you wouldn't want to be on it in a blow or a long ocean passage. It's built for a completely different purpose.

And by the way, I have sailed all of these boats hundreds or thousands of miles, and not just read about them on internet forums.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Don't see the cycling analogy though.
It is simply a case of society deciding (or not) to prevent individual choice. It is an interesting boundary case exactly because it is not 'existential' but it does definitely 'affect each other' (whether I am allowed to race with that drug affects both me and others I race with). The boundary cases are interesting because it starts to set where society can/should make such decisions or not. With true existential decisions there is really no question, other than will to act.

These decisions aren't ones of personal perspective where each is legitimate. choosing to do this stuff is a moral decision now.

I can understand that perspective. But then (again) how do you feel about people choosing the oyster 80? I don't see how you can view that as moral either. I am not and never have argued it is 'the same' (as the power boat) because clearly it is a smaller contributor . . . . but none the less it is an entirely voluntary and frivolous choice contributing to this existential threat. That would seem clearly immoral in this context.

This is genuinely existential

I will comment that my own personal perspective on the human race is rather negative. We have not shown all that much foresight or ability to take tough decisions or to work together. Past civilizations have fallen due to avoidable environmental (and other) issues (if tough decisions had been made) and today we still have nuclear weapons (and other wmd) and little to no progress on climate change. As a species I think we are not much better than rabbits or bacteria and we will almost certainly eat and **** and reproduce until we total wreck the planet.

That is NOT to say we should not try . . . but I am very conscious that in all likelihood the trying will fail. And by far the most likely path is that we will as a race adapt thru various levels of wrecking the planet. For the race, I agree with various other thinkers, that the only real solution is to spread humans in a sustainable way off this planet but we dont seem to have the technology (or will) to accomplish that.

Estar 2: you'll have views on how the Dashew boats sailed upwind and in the light.

I thought DH said the boats reached really really well.
. . which is certainly true - especially the versions with water ballast. In the light, that will in part depend on the loads on both boats and the sail selection and handling . . . . but stick height is also critical in the light (greater velocity up there) and the Dashew boats tended to have shorter sticks. Upwind . . . will again depend on the condition of the sails (even more than in the light) and some other stuff . . . . but it is hard to beat draft and dashew boats tended to be shallower. Without keel depth you might be able to point but the vmg would be difficult to achieve. Both of those cases are really 'less important' in a cruising context because likely you would take the opportunity to motor to charge up the battery bank.

.............

[Tricolor]

Hilarious topic, makes me feel a looser with my small footprint.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

.I thought DH said the boat reached really really well.
. . which was certainly true - especially the versions with water ballast. In the light, that will in part depend on the loads on both boats and the sail selection and handling . . . . but stick height is also critical in the light (greater velocity up there) and the Dashew boats tended to have shorter sticks. Upwind . . . will again depend on the condition of the sails (even more than in the light) and some other stuff . . . . but it is hard to beat draft and dashew boats tended to be shallower. Without keel you might be able to point but the vmg would be difficult to achieve.............

I did say, actually, that the Sundeer 64's I sailed (especially the water-ballasted one, which I crossed the North Sea on) were really good UPWIND. And yes -- you are right that the short keels limit their upwind ability -- there's no substitute for draft. But the 64's are extremely light -- D/L of only 80, similar to TJ's "Rocket Science" -- and extremely low drag with the low rig -- and besides that, they have super efficient big roach mainsails because of the B&R rig -- so they go like scalded cats in a good breeze. Because of the keel, they make a fair amount of leeway, but because of the speed, the VMG to windward is really good. We cracked off a bit and tacked through about 100 degrees, but the boat speed hardly fell below 10 and was often 11 and 12 even hard on the wind. It was the same trip exactly I had done a couple of years previously on my own boat, which was agony with my former dacron sails. With the water ballast set, the Sundeer was stiff as hell too and we carried full sail up to 20 knots true and more. The bat wing main was a joy to use. It did pound quite a bit, but I don't think sailing upwind against 25 knots of wind in the North Sea you could ask any boat for comfort. I did a long trip upwind in similar conditions on my friend's Swan 90 (n.b. this is an early '90s boat, a pure cruiser, not the current 90) and it was not as fast and vastly more difficult to handle. Cracked off of course nothing could catch that Swan (there's no substitute for waterline length) -- the same boat regularly did 300 mile days crossing the Pacific soon after.

I'm looking at this from a higher latitude perspective where a really big SA/D is a liability, and so up here, this is a good formula. I will want more draft and possibly even less SA/D for the new boat. I'm curious about the Sundeer 64 ketch -- never sailed one. I'm tempted by a ketch rig like this with the masts far apart and the big mainsails.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I always wonder if a crusading environmentalist would still prefer a small, sail only boat, when experiencing these types of conditions.

https://youtu.be/9k-g2VmyFCo

It has more to do with the boat than the size.

The smaller the boat, the safer it is. Also it becomes stronger. Consider a plastic bottle. It probably can survive any storm, even ones that sunk container ships!

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You have stated that you eat meat and dairy.

Do you know that one-third of the world's fresh water goes to livestock, which overwhelmingly feed people in the first world. Raising livestock causes vast amounts of water pollution. 14.5% of world carbon emissions relate to livestock. But this grossly understates the climatic effect of meat and dairy -- methane is 21x more potent as a greenhouse gas, than CO2, and cow farts are the largest anthropogenic source of

I appreciate your comments.

I keep hearing about "methane" being so much more potent than CO2, but considering methane breaks down from UV (sunlight) I don't see how it is much of a concern since it can only have temporary effects as opposed to CO2.

methane. The single most environmentally harmful thing which people do is not burning diesel fuel or petrol, but eating meat and dairy.

This is true, but not because cow fart. I do not buy meat, but if it is given to me, I do not refuse it, do you? It's a difficult to face negative social interactions by refusing someone's hospitality.

It also depends on which meat. If you catch a fish or hunt something wild, vs industrialized meat production which produces low quality product anyway.

Eating meat or not is not absolute. So eating some meat 2-3 times a month, is not so unhealthy, and the effects are well below the average american diet, although maybe still not acceptable.

Power boats are not even a drop in the bucket, not even a drop in the ocean, compared to livestock. People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. I have not (in

It is more than a drop in the ocean (ocean has lots of drops), but maybe well below 1%. This is because there are few people doing it, instead they are doing other stuff we (boaters) aren't.

The 1.6 ton per month CO2 figure is averaged over all USA citizens, and includes services like police, fire, and most notably military use. Burning a liter of diesel, or cooking gas, emits more than that in the transportion and refining of the fuel.

In 2016, the United States consumed a total of 7.21 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.69 million barrels per day.

This is 0.06 barrels per person per day. Each barrel yields 11 gallons of diesel fuel. This is .66 gallons or 2.5 liters per person per day.

Now I am obviously not considering the cost to transport the fuel which is substantial. I'm not counting the quota already consumed to produce and transport goods to the people in the boat.

After they stock their boat with hand-grown organic vegan food, with 2 people in the boat, 5 liters per day, it is 150 liters per month.

This is to be on par with average american, and american lifestyle is already completely unacceptable. American consume more than 20 times more than persons in africa.

To be fair to everyone in the world considering it is a "world tour" the consumption should be no more than 30 liters per month for 2 people, and that is at current unsustainable levels.

With 30 liters, how many hours per month can the boat run? How far can it travel? Is this suitable for ocean crossing?

this case) done the math, but if you do it, I'm sure you'll find that a few years of your own, of one person's meat and dairy consumption has resulted in more environmental damage than all of Dashew's efficient power boats ever made and put together. And

Please show this calculation.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

I certainly would never switch on the donk to keep up averages for boasting purposes like some

It sound like you have an engine!?

It's ok that you didn't know any better until now. I can give you all details you need to build a sculling oar, just send me PM! Mine is far more efficient than any engine.