Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I do not disagree that motoring uses fossil fuels, generates carbon, contributes to pollution and global climate changes and all the other issues.

BUT, be careful casting the first stone here. Do you live in a house with asphalt shingles, is it painted? Do you drive a car? Obviously you use a computer. You certainly wear clothes, eat food (do you eat exclusively organic so using no chemical fertilizer, no pesticides). Do you own a sailboat? Use bottom paint? Use sails made from synthetic fibers?

All of these and more use oil as the starting point to make them (you know most plastics, resins, paints, etc are made from petroleum derivatives) or to produce the energy required to make them or both. Living on this planet in this modern society uses resources and generates pollution and garbage.

In the overall scheme of things the contributions from the Dashews' power boats is extremely minor, to the point of insignificant.

Cheers.

Yes, of course we each have a footprint. The question is are we each doing what we can to make it smaller. Some of us are.

The Dashew boats' contribution is minor only if you view it in the wrong way. Look at it this way: their marketing message is that a couple can and should burn many, many tonnes of fuel just to see a view (elderly people who are from the first world and have likely planted pretty big carbon footprints already). This is associated with flying to and from the boat, flying in guests etc. If somebody is told or believes they deserve this, they need to be reminded of their contribution to the problem.

So, the better question when looking at this global problem that we are all causing and all share in is: what is a reasonable emissions footprint for me? It's not hard to read the IPCC report and see just how little more we can afford to burn before much, much more terrible things happen than are already now baked in. There is a finite amount of carbon that we can let out. The allowable amount per person on earth is very, very small. The more I use, the less my kids can. Any person who decides that they should get to burn away in two weeks' motoring what should be hundreds of peoples' total annual footprint is ignorant or selfish. And to return to the theme, their footprint is not "minor". It's shocking.

Seriously people, read the data. It's not hard to translate the prognoses (massive population movements, crop failures, weather changes etc). It means extinction of the species you swim amongst, the loss of cruising grounds, death and probably war.

So no, the contribution is not minor. It's not trivial, and it needs to be pointed out, because otherwise we don't change.

[Franziska]

++ Dockhead!

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, I have. I have spent time on two different Sundeers, and they are superb sailing machines. Where in the world do you get the idea that they "used them like motorsailers?" The trick is that the accommodation of these 65' boats is only like a 45 footer -- they are really stretched 45 footers which are thus ultralight 65 footers with superb D/L ratios and super easily driven hulls. Instead of scaling up the rig proportionately to get the last bit of possible speed out of them, they used modest rigs with very low drag, and the modest rigs allow modest draft. With very low drag rigs, and very fast due to low D/L and long waterline, they are absolutely fantastic upwind, one of the best upwind boats I've ever been on, much better than the Swan 90 I used to crew on, and moreover, very easy to sail over a wide variety of conditions due to the low stresses and low rig.

The extra length is used to create empty ends which reduce polar moment of inertia and pitching, further improving upwind performance. And those empty ends are used to provide fully watertight compartments fore and aft, where moreover all through hulls are located. Best engine room in the business -- because the whole aft part of the hull volume is devoted to it. The opposite approach of the modern commercially-oriented designs where every cubic centimeter of hull volume is used for hull volume with only tiny scraps left over for technical space, sail lockers (if they even exist), and deck storage.

The Sundeer is an absolutely brilliant boat. Maybe not quite as fast as some full on racer-cruisers of similar length and with much bigger rigs, like the Swan 60, but is faster over a wider range of conditions and far easier to handle, and much better in tough weather. Exactly the thing for practical long distance fast cruising, as opposed to coastal cafe racing with a full crew, which is a totally different mission. They are just about polar opposites from those Swan 60's, actually -- they are modest and practical and made for sailing, not posing. Absolutely the opposite of those boats made to make a dramatic statement at the yacht club.

So why don't I just buy one? Good question. Well, first of all they have hideous cave-like '80's uninsulated interiors (after 9 years in a Moody 54 ), and moreoever laid out for couples -- and I often sail with 5 or 6 people on board. And they are plastic, whereas I want my next boat to be metal. But there will be a lot of Sundeer DNA in my next boat.

I agree with what you say about the length, rig height etc, but I don't see what's innovative about stretching length out of a boat. I don't see novelty in what they did there.

I got the idea of them motoring a lot because i've seen it; i've heard it; i've read it (seen it mentioned even on this forum that the Dashews themselves flicked the donk on upwind often, and generally to maintain passage averages ).

Really surprised you think they sail well in light or upwind conditions. I haven't seen it and they have material disadvantages upwind that are obvious to the eye (unless all the other designers are doing it all wrong with appendages, avoiding stern dragging, etc).

We're talking upwind performance though and you say better than a swan 90 and "maybe not quite as fast" as a swan 60? That's weird.

[witzgall]

Or you could look at this pragmatically. The idea of buying a big power boat and cruising the world is not their invention, not remotely new. To the extent that they are promoting much more fuel and resource efficient designs for this sort of endeavor, they are benefiting, not hurting the environment.

BigMarv, your heart is in the right place, but we live in the world we live in, change happens slowly more often than not. Better to go after the truly gluttonous, vs. the Dashews.

Chris

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Cheers.

Yes, of course we each have a footprint. The question is are we each doing what we can to make it smaller. Some of us are.

The Dashew boats' contribution is minor only if you view it in the wrong way. Look at it this way: their marketing message is that a couple can and should burn many, many tonnes of fuel just to see a view (elderly people who are from the first world and have likely planted pretty big carbon footprints already). This is associated with flying to and from the boat, flying in guests etc. If somebody is told or believes they deserve this, they need to be reminded of their contribution to the problem.

So, the better question when looking at this global problem that we are all causing and all share in is: what is a reasonable emissions footprint for me? It's not hard to read the IPCC report and see just how little more we can afford to burn before much, much more terrible things happen than are already now baked in. There is a finite amount of carbon that we can let out. The allowable amount per person on earth is very, very small. The more I use, the less my kids can. Any person who decides that they should get to burn away in two weeks' motoring what should be hundreds of peoples' total annual footprint is ignorant or selfish. And to return to the theme, their footprint is not "minor". It's shocking.

Seriously people, read the data. It's not hard to translate the prognoses (massive population movements, crop failures, weather changes etc). It means extinction of the species you swim amongst, the loss of cruising grounds, death and probably war.

So no, the contribution is not minor. It's not trivial, and it needs to be pointed out, because otherwise we don't change.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Another one!!! I DID NOT SAID THAT!, It was somebody else that used that sentence.

I never said you did. But you spent five posts defending the use of that phrase, without understand what it sounds like, which put some people off. I was trying to help you out there.

Originally Posted by Polux

And I did said nothing about the Dashews except this:

Originally Posted by Polux
What the hell is a sailing career in what regards cruising?

Someone chose to cruise on a sailing boat or on a motor boat.

It has nothing to do with a carer and many chose to cruise on a sailboat way past the age the Dashews have now and they have chosen to pass to motorboat cruising long ago.

I do agree with bigmarv point of view when he says that "leisure boats to cross oceans powered solely by fossil fuels" is something that is not right and should not be considered.


Can I know with what you disagree?

I only disagree with the idea that it is up to you and me to tell other cruisers what kind of fuel they should use. It's none of our business. The average sailboat cruiser probably uses as much fuel as the average motor boater, since motor boats spend more time in the dock and on the average cover much shorter distances. What about guys who fly in their private jets to play golf someplace? There's no end to this, once you start poking your nose into others' business and judging whether they have a right to have fun in their own way, or not. And none of this compares to the amount of extra fuel used by the person who chooses to live in a distant suburb and drives a long distance to work every single day. Let's just all mind our own business, shall we?

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I never said you did. But you spent five posts defending the use of that phrase, without understand what it sounds like, which put some people off. I was trying to help you out there.



I only disagree with the idea that it is up to you and me to tell other cruisers what kind of fuel they should use. It's none of our business. The average sailboat cruiser probably uses as much fuel as the average motor boater, since motor boats spend more time in the dock and on the average cover much shorter distances. What about guys who fly in their private jets to play golf someplace? There's no end to this, once you start poking your nose into others' business and judging whether they have a right to have fun in their own way, or not. And none of this compares to the amount of extra fuel used by the person who chooses to live in a distant suburb and drives a long distance to work every single day. Let's just all mind our own business, shall we?

No, let's not. I strongly doubt that you'd take that approach if I pumped my raw sewerage out of my boat beside yours in some anchorage. Why the difference? It would be none of my business if it didn't affect me but it does.

Btw, if somebody is using as much fuel in a sailboat crossing an ocean as they would in a powerboat then they deserve the same reality check. They've either got a bad boat or are bad sailors.

[Franziska]

@Dockhead

Great last comment from your side.

[Colin A]

Originally Posted by witzgall

Or you could look at this pragmatically. The idea of buying a big power boat and cruising the world is not their invention, not remotely new. To the extent that they are promoting much more fuel and resource efficient designs for this sort of endeavor, they are benefiting, not hurting the environment.

BigMarv, your heart is in the right place, but we live in the world we live in, change happens slowly more often than not. Better to go after the truly gluttonous, vs. the Dashews.

Chris

Yeah the FP boats were incredibly fuel efficient for their size. Part of this was they tended to weigh less then other large ocean going motor yachts but they also had a different design. It depends if you look at absolutes or comparatives.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Colin A

Yeah the FP boats were incredibly fuel efficient for their size. Part of this was they tended to weigh less then other large ocean going motor yachts but they also had a different design. It depends if you look at absolutes or comparatives.

Agreed. One comparative is to say "but that bigger boat is worse". But that's a false comparison. The other is to compare it to a responsible footprint. Nobody here seems to want to do that. II don't get it. Hubris, maybe, I don't know.

I find it incredible that with the biggest problem this planet has ever faced, people say we should mind our own business.

[Franziska]

For me the tone how its said sets the tune for this song (=discussion).
Have your say, but be polite and you will perhaps get your points better across.

Also you might just need to accept that not everyone will agree.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I never said you did. But you spent five posts defending the use of that phrase, without understand what it sounds like, which put some people off. I was trying to help you out there.

It seems that you disregard the meaning of the sentence that is given in all dictionaries.

A similar expression exist in Portuguese and many other languages. It means not an insult but exactly what all dictionaries said: someone happy with somebody to go away.

Off course that means a low or not respect or even contempt to the one that goes away but if refers to a personal opinion and it is not and insult. Everybody is entitled to have his opinion about somebody else, other thing is to insult somebody else.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I only disagree with the idea that it is up to you and me to tell other cruisers what kind of fuel they should use. It's none of our business. ...The average sailboat cruiser probably uses as much fuel as the average motor boater...

I had not said anybody what they should do. I said that in my opinion someone that crosses the Atlantic burning 10 000 liters of fuel on relatively small a private boat is doing the wrong thing.

Not that he has not the right to do that but I consider that to be antisocial in a way that disproportionately contributes to pollution, that is a business that concerns us all.

And of course the average cruiser don't waste 10 000 liters crossing the Atlantic but a very tiny fraction of that.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Franziska

For me the tone how its said sets the tune for this song (=discussion).
Have your say, but be polite and you will perhaps get your points better across.

Also you might just need to accept that not everyone will agree.

Good point. Tone not a strong point. And yes, not expecting to agree on everything. Am surprised people are so blase on this site.

[Franziska]

Marv, go to Monaco or any Megayacht port and you see big pollution and waste of energy.
They do it for someones personal pleasure too.

Go to any Cruise terminal and have a look what kind of stuff many of these ships use as fuel oil. And have a look at their exhaust plumes too. That is for someone's pleasure too.

I'll bet the Dashews gave it a lot more consideration. I feel with the Dashews you are really barking up the wrong tree.
Especially as they designed specifically for low fuel consumption.
Any big planing production power yacht uses the same amount of fuel which the Dashews use to do crossings, in a weekend blasting along at 25kn not giving it a single thought.
Those are the guys you need to adress in my eyes.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

. . . There is a finite amount of carbon that we can let out. The allowable amount per person on earth is very, very small. The more I use, the less my kids can. Any person who decides that they should get to burn away in two weeks' motoring what should be hundreds of peoples' total annual footprint is ignorant or selfish. And to return to the theme, their footprint is not "minor". It's shocking.. . ..

A lot of emotion and moral indignation here. But have you run the numbers?

I'm pretty sure you haven't, judging by the morally superior tone.

Well, I did. Let's take a 3000 mile cruise. That's a really big cruise, I suppose less than 1% of cruisers do this many miles in a season.

There is data that people use about 1 to 1.3 liters/nm on average in the FPB 64, incidentally about 1/3 of the fuel consumption of similar Nordhavns. That includes generator use.

So over six months, say -- that would be 3000 to 4000 liters, or 500 to 700 liters of diesel fuel per month.

Is that "100's of people's total annual footprint", or did you just make that up? I was pretty sure it's the latter, so I ran the numbers myself.

700 liters of diesel fuel will produce 1.9 tonnes of CO2. The lifestyle of the average American produces about 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per person per month. For a household consisting of two retired people, that's 3.2 tonnes per household per month. So 1.9 tonnes of CO2 per month from one of Dashew's boats is "100's of people's total annual footprint"? Pure made-up-on-the-spot nonsense. A couple doing a long and long distance cruise on an FPB 64 will produce more carbon than just from burning diesel fuel -- they will be plugged into shore power sometimes, might fly someplace -- but few of them will be producing more than the average American household, much less 100's of times as much. Sitting at home -- as you sanctimoniously advise them to do -- will likely produce just as much carbon.

Dashew's extremely efficient power boats are about 3 times as efficient as large trawlers like Nordhavns. To the extent that people switch to them from Nordhavns, then the result is a significant reduction in carbon emissions. Since the great majority of sailboat cruisers motor more than 50% of the time, and since a large sailboat under power will consume similar amounts of fuel to Dashew's power boats, switching from a large sailboat to a FPB 64 will also not have much of an effect on anyone's carbon emissions.

[Tricolor]

Originally Posted by Franziska

For me the tone how its said sets the tune for this song (=discussion).
Have your say, but be polite and you will perhaps get your points better across.

Also you might just need to accept that not everyone will agree.

First time i agree with you