Dufour catamaran

[PaulinOz]

Quote: Barra "you seem to have missed the point their sport (again) "

No, I fear maybe you have, that was me trying to be ironic. (Happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.)

That was why I made the comment at the end "Where do I find an Irony smiley face to place here."

The information I eluded to in my post should be readily and easily available for any vessel.

How can a valid comparison be made between any two vessels, if the actual displacement (and how that is derived) and max loaded displacement are not clearly and plainly stated.

IMHO.

[Bean Counter]

I love our 1000 litres . Means I can fill up in the USA at around $2 a gallon, cruise the Caribbean for 5 months and come back again without needing to fill at over $4 a gallon. A lot of harbors, apart from being expensive have no fuel dock so you cart the jugs from the local garage, the fuel is often poor quality with creatures growing in it, so filters take a hammering too. I notice many small tankage boats just string a line of diesel jerry cans along the side rails - weighs the same if not more + exposure to the nice microbe enhancing warm sun + condensation -- yikes !

[PaulinOz]

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

No need for a L450 owner to wonder around trying to lose 500 lt of diesel to lighten the vessel. Some of us may just be capable of only filling said tank to the required level for a given passage. It's an option that we have and having options is always better than having no options, as Rom said "How cool is taht ? peace of mind !"

[Bean Counter]

Oh and of course you don't HAVE to fill your tank, just run a 1/4 and you just lost 600kg. Nice to have the choice though.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

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

No need for a L450 owner to wonder around trying to lose 500 lt of diesel to lighten the vessel. Some of us may just be capable of only filling said tank to the required level for a given passage. It's an option that we have and having options is always better than having no options, as Rom said "How cool is taht ? peace of mind !"

Rom stated carrying extra fuel 'should something happen', like light winds. If you don't see the dichotomy with that, and would rather burn fuel instead of sail, be my guest! I really don't care how much fuel you carry on your boat. My only point is there is a cost to carry extra fuel, especially if you have to burn fuel vs. sail just to carry the extra.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Quote: Barra "you seem to have missed the point their sport (again) "

No, I fear maybe you have, that was me trying to be ironic. (Happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.)

That was why I made the comment at the end "Where do I find an Irony smiley face to place here."

The information I eluded to in my post should be readily and easily available for any vessel.

How can a valid comparison be made between any two vessels, if the actual displacement (and how that is derived) and max loaded displacement are not clearly and plainly stated.

IMHO.

Yeah but yet again you didn't read beanies post or didn't understand it.why does this keep happening I wonder??? Do you see red and feel the need to leap to your boats defence all the time perhaps? What a way to be!

The weight of hull alone is not disclosed but depending on construction technique etc there is a huge difference here. Understanding that is part of looking past the gelcoat to know what you are actually buying. In some boats hull weight = strength. In others it means lots of drop in pods to save labour.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Rom stated carrying extra fuel 'should something happen', like light winds. If you don't see the dichotomy with that, and would rather burn fuel instead of sail, be my guest! I really don't care how much fuel you carry on your boat. My only point is there is a cost to carry extra fuel, especially if you have to burn fuel vs. sail just to carry the extra.

Exactly

[Jim Cate]

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 ...

The aptness of our boat choice is not proven by this or any post on any forum. I tend to think is is proven by the 15 years and 59,000+ miles of happy cruising in her. I don't need to inflate my ego by bragging about my boat or denigrating others. I do feel that commenting on unusual design features is within the realm of CF convention and I still feel that a thousand liters of fuel on a mid sized sailing yacht is unusual.

And I do try to make "useful/interesting" posts here on CF. On the whole, I'd say that most of mine score at least as well as your effort above from which I quoted.

But enough of this...

The point about large tankage allowing bunkering where fuel is cheap is a good one. We have friends who built a 60+ foot steel displacement trawler for a circumnavigation. It had huge tanks. When they launched it in NZ, they put enough fuel in her to reach Oz, where fuel was cheaper. There they took on enough to reach Indonesia where (at the time) it was really cheap, and there they filled 'er up. This lasted a couple of years and many thousands of miles, reaching one of the ports near the Red Sea (don't remember which one) where once again they filled up on nearly free fuel. This lasted up the Red Sea, through some time in the Med, across the Atlantic and the Caribe and thence to Venezuela where once again they bunkered. With that in hand, they transited the canal and returned to NZ, closing the circle with basically three fuel stops. Way cool! And as economical as possible in a M/Y. Had they been in a sailing vessel, a different approach might have changed their plan...

So, different strokes and all that.

Jim

[Barra]

^^^
Interesting post thanks Jim 😉

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

The aptness of our boat choice is not proven by this or any post on any forum. I tend to think is is proven by the 15 years and 59,000+ miles of happy cruising in her. I don't need to inflate my ego by bragging about my boat or denigrating others. I do feel that commenting on unusual design features is within the realm of CF convention and I still feel that a thousand liters of fuel on a mid sized sailing yacht is unusual.

And I do try to make "useful/interesting" posts here on CF. On the whole, I'd say that most of mine score at least as well as your effort above from which I quoted.

But enough of this...

The point about large tankage allowing bunkering where fuel is cheap is a good one. We have friends who built a 60+ foot steel displacement trawler for a circumnavigation. It had huge tanks. When they launched it in NZ, they put enough fuel in her to reach Oz, where fuel was cheaper. There they took on enough to reach Indonesia where (at the time) it was really cheap, and there they filled 'er up. This lasted a couple of years and many thousands of miles, reaching one of the ports near the Red Sea (don't remember which one) where once again they filled up on nearly free fuel. This lasted up the Red Sea, through some time in the Med, across the Atlantic and the Caribe and thence to Venezuela where once again they bunkered. With that in hand, they transited the canal and returned to NZ, closing the circle with basically three fuel stops. Way cool! And as economical as possible in a M/Y. Had they been in a sailing vessel, a different approach might have changed their plan...

So, different strokes and all that.

Jim

A concept Dashew also applied in his designs.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Rom stated carrying extra fuel 'should something happen', like light winds. If you don't see the dichotomy with that, and would rather burn fuel instead of sail, be my guest! I really don't care how much fuel you carry on your boat. My only point is there is a cost to carry extra fuel, especially if you have to burn fuel vs. sail just to carry the extra.

So how much faster will a Lagoon 450 sail if it's fuel tanks are empty vs full?

I don't know as my Lagoon 400 only carries 450l all up, and this doesn't make a huge difference. Like I said, Lagoons and Fountaine Pajots for that matter are designed to carry weight. Perhaps the L450 owners have real life data rather than speculation about the speed sacrifice of carrying fuel?

[Barra]

Originally Posted by tuskie

So how much faster will a Lagoon 450 sail if it's fuel tanks are empty vs full?

I don't know as my Lagoon 400 only carries 450l all up, and this doesn't make a huge difference. Like I said, Lagoons and Fountaine Pajots for that matter are designed to carry weight. Perhaps the L450 owners have real life data rather than speculation about the speed sacrifice of carrying fuel?

mate we had a whole bunch of posts on this!

it wont sail faster but it will sail in lower winds (negating the need for more fuel)

yep I would be interested what real world 600kg less payload will make to a 450 too and it wont be as much some other boats but i reckon its worth at least an extra knot to knot and a half less wind speed to keep sailing.

(and on a passage thats huge)

any 450 owners know?

how about on the 400 tuskie ?

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by Barra

mate we had a whole bunch of posts on this!

it wont sail faster but it will sail in lower winds (negating the need for more fuel)

yep I would be interested what real world 600kg less payload will make to a 450 too and it wont be as much some other boats but i reckon its worth at least an extra knot to knot and a half less wind speed to keep sailing.

any 450 owners know?

how about on the 400 tuskie ?

Your "extra knot to knot and a half of wind speed" is just your guess.

I don't think my fuel load would make that much difference although my tanks have never been below 25% full. But right now, I'm off Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 5 knots DDW and a 2.0m to 2.5m beam swell that is making my sails flog , so mate, I'm off to drop them and burn some fuel to see if the lighter boat goes faster. The joys of cruising!

[PaulinOz]

Quote Barra"If you don't see the dichotomy with that, and would rather burn fuel instead of sail, be my guest! I really don't care how much fuel you carry on your boat. My only point is there is a cost to carry extra fuel, especially if you have to burn fuel vs. sail just to carry the extra."


QuoteBarra"it wont sail faster but it will sail in lower winds (negating the need for more fuel)

If I require a large fuel load, I personally prefer it to be in dedicated tankage as opposed to the other options available that some vessels seem to need to go to.

Maybe somebody should tell them if they leave all that fuel off there vessel they will be able to sail in lighter airs and will not require to go to these lengths.











Quote "Yeah but yet again you didn't read beanies post or didn't understand it.why does this keep happening I wonder???"

My comment's where not directly related to Bean Counters post re actual hull weight, more to the fact that getting reliable, certified displacements and load carrying capacities seems to be more difficult than it should be for a lot of vessels.

Quote: "Do you see red and feel the need to leap to your boats defence all the time perhaps?"

Not at all, just ask and I will gladly tell you what I see as wrong with my own choice of boats design and fit out and how it could be improved based on my requirements.

On the other hand, I do not at every opportunity jump in to discussions about performance orientated vessels and tell people they have no idea about cruising/sailing, because in my opinion the only true way to cruise successfully is with a heavy displacement, fully loaded vessel with all the modern conveniences that modern life has to offer.

(Just to be clear the above paragraph is also meant to be ironic.)

Just because some people have made the choice they have, to travel in a light weight, minimalist configured vessel. That is there choice, nor do I criticize the vessel based on my own set of sailing preferences.

I just try to put the other side of the story, when personal preferences are used as criticisms of another vessels fit for purpose.


Quote:Bara Post #44 "This all started from the usual drivel of "i dont need performance i dont want to go fast" earlier on this thread.

Factor just pulled him up on it and the quote was so well put i agreed -"

I believe this whole discussion was started not by the "usual drivel of "i dont need performance i dont want to go fast" but by

Post #2 "No mention of a displacement figure I see. So it isnt something they want to talk about?"

Post #4 "Displacement shown in video render was close to 15 ton, so a bit of a porker. But, its a charter design, so......"

Post #5 "15 ton for 48 foot is very nearly obese"

Bear in mind the above are the 2nd, 4th and 5th responses to the initial post by Yeloa copied below because it is hard to remember where this all started.


After Bavaria (Nauthitec), Hanse (Privilege), Benetteau (Lagoon), Jeanneau (to be announced soon), Dufour also couldn't stay out of the booming catamaran market..

https://nlyachts.com/en/used-boats/d...catamaran.html

I am told the #1 will touch water in April and she will be available for charter already in 2018 season.

Cheers

Yeloya "

So you decide where the usual drivel started! and who is trying to leap to the defense of there own vessels preferences. We are up to post #133 and would be lucky if there are 10 posts with any relevance to the original post about a new Dufor catamaran.

[smj]

Kind of a pointless argument. The Lagoons were never designed to excel at light wind performance no matter how light you keep them. The Lagoons are designed to be very live able cruisers which they do well. Pick your poison and enjoy your choice.