Cruising boat for a 62 and 63 year old?.

[inet-projects]

As its still winter you might want to look on Air B&B or Beds on Boats, when I was looking last year aged 58, we could sleep on one for a few days at a time quite cheaply especially in Greece, but it gave me a good understanding of what I wanted, ended up with a Beneteau 393, bought her in Croatia, had her checked out by a transatlantic racer and he loved her to bits. Just waiting for the earth to warm up and I going to leave my wife for my new woman.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by KP44

I replace my Ford Lehman 85 hp with an Iveco 100 hp. The Iveco is made by Fiat, who make more engines than any other. The new Iveco is rated to about 2800 rpm. Even after sitting in dry storage for over a year, it started yesterday after half a turn.

I run at 1800 max and never intend go over 2000 rpm. At 1200 we move along at about 5 knots and in a hurry we go 1500 to 1800 rpm.



I have seen engines need rebuild soon when run at their rated rpm and I have seen engines in good shape after 15 years commercial use that were never taken over 1800. I concur that slow-turning is much better.

https://www.proboat.com/2015/02/why-...y-on-a-diesel/

I’m not a diesel mechanic but both manufacturers such as Yanmar and industry pros such as D’Antonio seem to agree that chronic underloading a diesel is bad for it.

The main point I was making was that my friends lobster yacht has a much bigger engjne and uses a lot more fuel for only about a 2 knot increase in speed over what my sailboat does. Therefore it makes good sense, even if you intend to motor a lot rather than sail, to have a Cruising sailboat rather than a semi displacement motorboat.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Therefore it makes good sense, even if you intend to motor a lot rather than sail, to have a Cruising sailboat rather than a semi displacement motorboat.

Or if you were interested in making fair comparisons you would have said a full displacement motorboat

We have zero wake out the back at our hull speed of 8 knots so very efficient.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

https://www.proboat.com/2015/02/why-...y-on-a-diesel/

I’m not a diesel mechanic but both manufacturers such as Yanmar and industry pros such as D’Antonio seem to agree that chronic underloading a diesel is bad for it.

The main point I was making was that my friends lobster yacht has a much bigger engjne and uses a lot more fuel for only about a 2 knot increase in speed over what my sailboat does. Therefore it makes good sense, even if you intend to motor a lot rather than sail, to have a Cruising sailboat rather than a semi displacement motorboat.

Comparing the fuel consumption of a sailboat (displacement hull) to a downeaster (semi-displacement hull) is apples to oranges. I would guess that your friends boat will do at least 20 knots & that ability comes at a price. However, the great thing about a "built up" lobster boat hull is that you can run them at displacement hull speeds with a small diesel & burn much less fuel although the lack of a rocker still hurts. Our 6 ton Scout 30 has a full displacement hull & we burn just over half a gallon at 7 knots.

[Deryck]

I'm new to this forum and have just seen your original post which caught my eye as I'm 60 and just in the process on deciding on a yacht for living aboard.

Fortunately I'm still pretty fit and active but one of my criteria for looking at boats that might interest me was that I wanted a walk through transom as it occurred to me that I might not be quite as agile in a few years time (who knows what's round the corner for anyone) and I really didn't want to be climbing up and over lifelines every day and walking off the pontoon straight into the cockpit seemed like the best way to go.

I've got a couple of friends who are the same age and they definitely wouldn't have been able to even visit me if they had to climb up and into the cockpit.

Other than that, I'd think that ease of short handed sailing is the only other 'age related' issue in deciding on any boat to buy.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Or if you were interested in making fair comparisons you would have said a full displacement motorboat

We have zero wake out the back at our hull speed of 8 knots so very efficient.

It's sort of tough to call your 60' motoryacht a "fair comparison" with a typical 40 something foot cruising sailboat. I don't doubt that your boat, with its 50 something foot waterline is very efficient at 8 knots because that's a couple of knots below displacement hull speed. But my friends boats waterline length is about half of yours so at 8-10 knots he's forcing it through the water above its hull speed and that takes a LOT of power. That fact was driven home to me at the end of a day on his boat when I offered to share the tab at the fuel pumps, I was shocked! His motorboat, at 38' has about the same amount of living space as my 47' sailboat, and as I previously mentioned, he typically cruises at only a couple of knots faster than I do so I think it's a reasonable comparison to make. I've got 8' more feet of waterline than he does and cruise at less than hull speed where he is using brute strength to force his boat through the water at a speed that's above hull speed but well below planing speed. If he cruised at a speed that was a couple knots below his displacement hull speed, as you do on your 60' motoryacht, he wouldn't need anywhere near as big an engine or burn as much fuel as he does, but he'd also only be doing about 6 knots. For similar money and similar living space and just a slightly lower cruising speed, I think it makes sense to at least consider a longer waterline sailboat with a much smaller engine that moves through the water MUCH more efficiently than does a shorter lobster yacht with a 350 hp engine. Those extra couple of knots in cruising speed that his boat is capable of come at a VERY high cost and when winds are favorable he doesn't have the option of enjoying the silence and vibration free feeling of sailing. I understand that some people don't want to deal with sails and rigging and for them a motorboat is the only good option, but for someone considering a typical 38ish' trawler or lobster yacht, I think a 45-50' sailboat can make good sense, even if they plan to spend most of their time motoring.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

Comparing the fuel consumption of a sailboat (displacement hull) to a downeaster (semi-displacement hull) is apples to oranges. I would guess that your friends boat will do at least 20 knots & that ability comes at a price. However, the great thing about a "built up" lobster boat hull is that you can run them at displacement hull speeds with a small diesel & burn much less fuel although the lack of a rocker still hurts. Our 6 ton Scout 30 has a full displacement hull & we burn just over half a gallon at 7 knots.

Of course I realize that there are many differences between a displacement sailboat and a semi displacement motorboat. But the comparison I am trying to make is that to get about the same amount of living space to the destination in almost the same amount of time, a cruising sailboat will do it a LOT more efficiently.

In many ways your boat has a lot more in common with a cruising sailboat than it does with my friends semi displacement motorboat. Your boat is narrower like a sailboat will tend to be, has a nearly plumb bow so has a relatively long waterline length, and its engine size is more similar to a sailboat of that length than to a lobsteryacht. You use your small engine to push your narrow boat efficiently through the water at less than its displacement hull speed, just like a cruising sailboat does. But my friends boat is much wider and has an engine that's almost 10 times as many horsepower as yours that he runs at half throttle to go only about 3 knots faster. I think that if your boat were put on steroids and all dimensions were increased by about 50%, it would have a similar amount of living space and be very efficient, just like a sailboat that size is.

I agree with you that IF he was willing to cruise at less than his displacement hull speed, then he could do it with a much smaller engine and save a lot of fuel in the process, but that's not what he does. He has an engine that's about 4 times as big as mine that wouldn't even get warmed up if he limited himself to a knot below his displacement hull speed. He could go much faster at 90% throttle, but it would be a very rough ride in any decent sized waves and his fuel consumption would be off the charts. So, what he does is to cruise at about half throttle (still way more power and fuel flow than a cruising sailboat with similar living space would use) a few knots above his displacement hull speed, which isn't very much above the typical cruising speed of a cruising sailboat that has a similar amount of living space aboard.

[Capt Phil]

I cannot help but get my oar in the water on this discussion of the effect of running marine engines at less than top rated rpm for long periods.
My wife and I spent considerable time living aboard and cruising our DeFever 54 that had twin CAT D330’s which we cruised at about 1600 RPM which gave us close to 7 knots. The fuel burn at this RPM was a total of 4 gal/hr!
We put several thousands of miles on the vessel at this speed and RPM but both engines were equipped with luberfiner oil filters which, I believe, added considerably to their longevity. We rarely ran the engines up to their max rated RPM. So the age old adage that diesels should be run hard did not prove correct in our case. When we sold her after 10 years of cruising and living aboard, the mechanical survey which included an extensive oil analysis, proved to be the condition of the engines and running gear were ‘like new’.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

It's sort of tough to call your 60' motoryacht a "fair comparison" with a typical 40 something foot cruising sailboat.

I never said it was.
I said a full displacement hull is a fairer comparison to a cruising sailboat hull than your semi displacement hull is.

Obviously, as ours is 60ft we would need to be comparing it against other full displacement 60ft cruising sailboats with similar displacement.
A Turkish gulet would be close - they are about 55 tonne and 300hp.
The numbers on fuel burn would be similar.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

I never said it was.
I said a full displacement hull is a fairer comparison to a cruising sailboat hull than your semi displacement hull is.

Obviously, as ours is 60ft we would need to be comparing it against other full displacement 60ft cruising sailboats with similar displacement.
A Turkish gulet would be close - they are about 55 tonne and 300hp.
The numbers on fuel burn would be similar.

I'm not sure what you think is "unfair" about the comparison I made between the efficiency of my friends boat vs mine. It is what it is and his boat is a fairly typical type that many boaters in my area turn to as an alternative to owning a cruising sailboat. Part of the reason for making this choice is that it is capable of greater speed because it's a semi displacement hull and many people see this greater speed as a desirable trait. I was just pointing out that this greater speed comes at the cost of a very big difference in fuel consumption and that another alternative is to get a cruising sailboat with the same amount of living space (which will have a longer waterline and therefore a higher displacement hull speed) and accept that you will arrive later, but only a short amount of time later and with a lot more fuel left in your tank.

Yes, as you say, it's true that in many ways a displacement motorboat is more like a displacement sailboat but that's not what my friend happens to own so not what I wrote about. But since any displacement boats max economical speed is dependent on its waterline length, and most (not all) motorboats are wider and shorter than a comparably priced sailboat, the comparably sized (living space) and priced sailboat will be longer and have a longer waterline length and higher displacement hull speed. Unless a cruising boater REALLY doesn't want to or can't deal with sailboat rigging, I don't understand why many would choose to wallow along in a shorter, slower, displacement motoryacht over a longer, faster, more comfortable riding cruising sailboat they could buy for the same price, even if they intended to almost always use the motor rather than sail.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm not sure what you think is "unfair" about the comparison I made between the efficiency of my friends boat vs mine. It is what it is and his boat is a fairly typical type that many boaters in my area turn to as an alternative to owning a cruising sailboat. Part of the reason for making this choice is that it is capable of greater speed because it's a semi displacement hull and many people see this greater speed as a desirable trait. I was just pointing out that this greater speed comes at the cost of a very big difference in fuel consumption and that another alternative is to get a cruising sailboat with the same amount of living space (which will have a longer waterline and therefore a higher displacement hull speed) and accept that you will arrive later, but only a short amount of time later and with a lot more fuel left in your tank.

Yes, as you say, it's true that in many ways a displacement motorboat is more like a displacement sailboat but that's not what my friend happens to own so not what I wrote about. But since any displacement boats max economical speed is dependent on its waterline length, and most (not all) motorboats are wider and shorter than a comparably priced sailboat, the comparably sized (living space) and priced sailboat will be longer and have a longer waterline length and higher displacement hull speed. Unless a cruising boater REALLY doesn't want to or can't deal with sailboat rigging, I don't understand why many would choose to wallow along in a shorter, slower, displacement motoryacht over a longer, faster, more comfortable riding cruising sailboat they could buy for the same price, even if they intended to almost always use the motor rather than sail.

I think the problem here is one of labels. You're calling your boat a sailboat but it's actually a motor boat with sails and I'll prove it to you. If your motor stops working would you leave the dock to go somewhere? I think not. Conversely, would you leave the dock to go somewhere if you couldn't sail? Of course you would. Sailors do that all the time when they are actually trying to get somewhere. So this isn't a question of whether sailboats are more efficient at motoring than motorboats. It's a question of what hull shape is more efficient because sailboats are motorboats.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

.
Unless a cruising boater REALLY doesn't want to or can't deal with sailboat rigging, I don't understand why many would choose to wallow along in a shorter, slower, displacement motoryacht over a longer, faster, more comfortable riding cruising sailboat they could buy for the same price, even if they intended to almost always use the motor rather than sail.

We have had several performance yachts, a cruising yacht and a couple of catamarans and have crossed oceans in one of them and lived aboard for several months of the year on a few of them.

We can and are still able to sail just fine, but if I was to get my wife aboard - TRULY living aboard , there were a few things that were not to be compromised on and to get that would have been $600,000 + in a mono or $1,000,000+ in a catamaran and even then I doubt they could be as comfortable.

Instead we bought this vessel for a small fraction of those costs.
There are no compromises in comfort or weight carrying ability.
Due to her size and weight there is no wallowing
I don't see to many cruising monohull's that consistently do 8 knots in any direction while on passage.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

I think the problem here is one of labels. You're calling your boat a sailboat but it's actually a motor boat with sails and I'll prove it to you. If your motor stops working would you leave the dock to go somewhere? I think not. Conversely, would you leave the dock to go somewhere if you couldn't sail? Of course you would. Sailors do that all the time when they are actually trying to get somewhere. So this isn't a question of whether sailboats are more efficient at motoring than motorboats. It's a question of what hull shape is more efficient because sailboats are motorboats.

Actually, though I’d obviously prefer my motor to be working, if I needed to go somewhere without it, I wouldn’t have a problem with choosing to go without the motor so I had to rely on my sails. The closest I came to that was just as I was heading to the fuel dock prior to leaving Marsh Harbor for Florida, power went out at the marina. Since I knew the transformer would likely be repaired on “island time” and there was plenty of wind, I chose to not wait to get fuel, knowing I didn’t have enough onboard to go far. Then, the fuel filter got clogged and so did several replacements but I continued sailing to Florida rather than returning to address the problem with fuel I was having. Once I reached my destination in port canaveral I cleaned a filter cartridge with a toothbrush and ran the engine just long enough to tie up at a slip.

But I agree that for many, a Cruising sailboat can make a pretty good motorboat if you want to use it that way and that’s the very point I’ve been trying to make.

Actually, once it was clear that motoring wasn’t an option, it didn’t seem at all stressful except it was sort of a pain to run out of electricity as a result. But another time, back before gps, I set out for a week of Cruising here in Maine without a depth finder and that made me much more nervous than not having a working engine did. I paid VERY close attention to my paper charts that week!

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, though I’d obviously prefer my motor to be working, if I needed to go somewhere without it, I wouldn’t have a problem with choosing to go without the motor so I had to rely on my sails. The closest I came to that was just as I was heading to the fuel dock prior to leaving Marsh Harbor for Florida, power went out at the marina. Since I knew the transformer would likely be repaired on “island time” and there was plenty of wind, I chose to not wait to get fuel, knowing I didn’t have enough onboard to go far. Then, the fuel filter got clogged and so did several replacements but I continued sailing to Florida rather than returning to address the problem with fuel I was having. Once I reached my destination in port canaveral I cleaned a filter cartridge with a toothbrush and ran the engine just long enough to tie up at a slip.

But I agree that for many, a Cruising sailboat can make a pretty good motorboat if you want to use it that way and that’s the very point I’ve been trying to make.

Actually, once it was clear that motoring wasn’t an option, it didn’t seem at all stressful except it was sort of a pain to run out of electricity as a result. But another time, back before gps, I set out for a week of Cruising here in Maine without a depth finder and that made me much more nervous than not having a working engine did. I paid VERY close attention to my paper charts that week!

There's a big difference between continuing on when your motor dies & actually leaving the dock with no motor. Most would do the former. Few would do the latter. In fact most would consider it imprudent & reckless. Regardless, my point is still valid. A sailboat with a motor is a motorboat & most are underpowered. As a result few sailboats can get anywhere close to hull speed when motoring into a strong headwind, exactly the time when most sailors tend to motor.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqUG6Fpdfps

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, once it was clear that motoring wasn’t an option, it didn’t seem at all stressful except it was sort of a pain to run out of electricity as a result. But another time, back before gps, I set out for a week of Cruising here in Maine without a depth finder and that made me much more nervous than not having a working engine did. I paid VERY close attention to my paper charts that week!

Not so many years ago, the outboard on my C&C25 suddenly wasn't running. I was out in the 1000 islands (lake Ontario) with 3 kids all under 10 years old for crew. Turning back wasn't an option. Fortunately, I had practiced sailing in and out of docks and anchorages for years. It was actually quite rewarding to put to use the skills I had worked on so long. We spent a few days in the islands, as planned, then worked our way upwind back to kingston. Fortunately, our area is rarely lacking in wind. Once the kids were safely home, I pulled the outboard (one of the real benefits of outboard engines) and delivered it to an outboard shop. I was told it would be a two week wait just to have it looked at...it was high season for both boating and fishing! The next weekend was ideal weather, and no way was I going to sit at the dock. So I loaded up my family, gave a big push off the dock and sailed out of the marina (POH). My only real concern was running out of wind. But even that wouldn't have been a disaster, as we were well stocked. As it turned out we had plenty of wind, and a great day. When you have an engine, you are always thinking..."should I start the engine now?"..."when should I start the engine?"...and..."I wonder if the engine will start?". When you have no engine, those questions just don't come up. You sail. Its a sailboat. IMHO, its actually easier. I really felt like a sailor that day. I don't think my kids would have even noticed, except that I kept on pointing it out. They liked it because the outboard is a big smelly thing on the stern that's in the way when you climb in and out from swimming. Also, it seemed calmer. Something about starting the engine to come into the dock that gets the blood pressure up. Sailing in is so quiet, slow, and calm. A real pleasure. Pics below are from that day.