Tarquin Trader

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Are you saying the Trader 575 does 1.7mpg @ 9.9knots and the Squaddie does 0.6mpg at the same speed and also the Trader will give a better fuel consumption @ 18knots than the Squaddie?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

No.
I am saying that the Squaddie at normal cruising speed (say 25 knots) returns about 0.6mpg. This is the consumption trips are planned on.

The trader at the same speeds would probably return 0.4mpg.

However the crossover point when the Trader is doing the same 0.6mpg is 18knots ... so I ask myself what do I prefer a Trader at 18 knots with a much nicer ride, ability to make cup of tea and walk around the boat OR the Squaddies that gets me there faster.

The Squaddies with a planing hull at 9.9knots is not an option but the trader also offers this option and long distance cruising.


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

The squaddie hull will not work well at 9.9 knots.
Also as you increase speed to before the hump with the squaddie you get worse fuel consumption than when planing.
The trader offers fuel savings all the way up to 18 knots then it gets worse.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[miket]

Have you considered the Atlantic 50?

I have a friend who has, I believe, decided to sell his and it is not only beautifully fitted out but performs surprisingly well and is superbly comfortable in a seaway.
It is the 2 cabin version with lower dinette. Some have 3 cabins and an upper dinette.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

I am really looking at boats that are at least 58 foot or so long and up to 70, a 50 would feel too cramped after what we have become used to but thanks for the suggestion.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[KevB]

Ah, but a what point is the time travelled and fuel used equal? To cover 26nm in a squaddie @ 26 knots you are going to save fuel compared to covering the same distance @ 18knots in a trader.


<edit> just realised you are quoting mpg and not gph.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by KevB on 23/11/2004 14:16 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Gludy]

Sorry ... please go back to school.

I am stating mpg (miles per gallon), you are getting confused with gallons per hour. So my points are valid.
Cheers




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

No question that the Trader will be a more comfortable and spacious cruising boat at sea so I can see the attraction from that point of view. Also, as a boat on which to spend extended periods, the additional interior space would be very useful. But, like tcm suggests, you really gotta test this thing in a big sea because the motion is going to be different to the Squaddie and I bet she throws a lot of water around as well
Btw have you looked at the Fleming 55. Fabulously engineered boat with same kind of deck space as the Trader but different layout inside

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

The Fleming 55 is a fine boat but it appears small compared the the Trader 575.
I also find its fuel consumption, as printed on the Fleming site to be very high.

I am determined to buy a new boat and that new boat has to be much more comfotable at sea as well as having extended range and bigger accomodation than my Squaddie ... I want to be able to do some serious long range cruising each winter, then come back to the UK each summer to try and catch the 2 weeks of sunshine.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[mjf]

I like your comment ''I want a boat that allows my familty to enjoy getting there as well as arriving there''


Agree entirely thats basically the difference between similar sized sail vs motor boats in my opinion. I like the sailing there - which happens too fast in a MBO but when you arrive I like the space the F/B boat has over the sail boat where in Winter you are force to hide ina hole!

Have you looked at Elling?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[rickp]

I must admit to quite liking the Elling, especially since they dumped that 'garage' lazarette and redid the stern moulding. I think the E4 (the largest model at 48') is going to be too small for Paul though

Have you been out on an Elling in any sort of sea? No stabilisation, so could be a bit rolly...

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mjf]

No but I liked the concept - I think!

the detail was good and the w/t integrity appears excellent for long range cruising.

Not sure about the single prop issue etc etc

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Sorry the Elling is too small and too slow. I need the option of higher speeds. If I was to accept a max speed of say 10 knots I would go to a big Nordhaven and manage to get 4 to 6 mpg!!

SWMBO is now very much into semi-displacment boating, in theory at least.

When you are doing 25 knots hour after hour in even a big planing boat like mine ... I am fine but passengers find it difficult to even walk to the toilet, let alone make a cup of tea and relax.

On the other hand I want the option to go faster when I want to.

If what I have been told about the Trader is right then a trip to Padstow for me would add another hour but the trip would be much more of a pleasure for all.
All should enjoy getting there as well as being there.

If fuel goes up then frankly its going to be even slower at 10 knots would equate to what I consume now but I would also have the range to get to Spain without even filling up on the way.

My perfect boat is a Marlow 78 - even has a little central engine for popping along at displacment speed and a range of 3000 miles.

I have to have a go in a Trader at sea ..... that is certain but it is looking like the way for me to go unless someone can knock me off that path. That would start with a 575 and probably end up with a new 64.

In this phase of deciding my opinions, I change my views over hours ..... its a process o go through everytime!

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I think you have to take quoted fuel consumption figures with large doses of salt because IMHO, fuel consumption at any particular displacement speed is largely a function of the displacement (ie the volume of water displaced by the boat) and since the displacement is going to be about the same for most power boats of the same length, then the fuel consumption is going to be about the same. You can tinker around with the hull to make it hydrodynamically more efficient but you are talking only a few % difference. Does it take significantly less fuel to push Trader 575 through the water than a Fleming 55 at 9 knots? I doubt it but I'm perfectly ready to be flamed by somebody who knows better

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

"Does it take significantly less fuel to push Trader 575 through the water than a Fleming 55 at 9 knots? I doubt it but I'm perfectly ready to be flamed by somebody who knows better "

I doubt it too but I am not saying that, I think I am not explaing it well because you have missed the point.

I am comparing Trader 575 to my Squadron 59.
Up to 18 knist the Trader is lower aon fule consumption.
At 18 knots its the same.
Over 18 knots is worse.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

What you said was "I also find its fuel consumption, as printed on the Fleming site to be very high" which, since we are talking displacement speeds, I took to mean you found the fuel consumption of the Fleming higher at displacement speeds
Anyway, I would'nt mind betting that the consumption of the Sq59 at displacement speeds is'nt a lot different either but I'm happy to be flamed on that one too

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kindredspirit]

Re: Marlow trial

Paul, you wouldn't happen to know roughly whereabouts in Ireland, that Marlow is going to, would you?


Kevin.




<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.begleys.com/weather.htm>Useful links for Irish waters.</A>

 

[jfm]

That's what I was getting at mike. At the same speed the flem and the Sq59 will be v similar mpg. OK the flem probly has a slicker hull shape for low speed , but that will be a minor differnce. The flem will be more comfortable maybe, because of the stabs. But in that case better to face up to the fact that reason for changing the boat is more comfort not more mpg?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

"Anyway, I would'nt mind betting that the consumption of the Sq59 at displacement speeds is'nt a lot different either but I'm happy to be flamed on that one too "

I think the Trader would be more efficient but not enough to notice the difference at displaement speeds ..... so I would agree with you.

However, there is no comparison between the comfort of the planing hull at displacment speed and the Trader..... so the comparison is meaningless.

If you then increased speeds just a little on both to say 14 knots then the squadron is just before the hump and probably using more fuel than when it planes... the Trader is mor economical up to 18 knots. ... so the trader offers a choice, you pay for it but a choice none the less. Planing boats really do not offer that choice.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

"But in that case better to face up to the fact that reason for changing the boat is more comfort not more mpg? "

But I have made it clear that both comfort and a choice of economy are the main factors.

If I was in the Med doing short trips out of a Marina the Squadron is ideal but I will be about long distance cruising with shorter trips being in a pretty well constant f4/5 in the second biggest tidal range in the world plus the Trader can dry out and that opens up hundreds of more ports of call to me.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul