The costs of pulling the throttles back

[benjenbav]

so how does that equate to per minute of planing fun?

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.


All my own work, of course

 

[U4]

trouble is we periodically get the big, big big bills as well!

Im glad you said that, for a moment there I thought it was just me!!

 

[MapisM]

Cat engines record total fuel burnt, btw

Now, that's interesting.
Coming to think of it, it's very logical for any ECU equipped engine to store that number, among all others.
But I never bothered checking, so I wasn't aware of that.
Makes me wonder why they still use hours for the maintenance tables...
Maybe just because that's what people is used to look at.

Anyway, I would think that if you can reliably show to a buyer not only the hours, but also the fuel burnt (hence the average load at which the engine has been used), the "high hours=high wear" argument looses a lot of its strength.
Even with a skeptical buyer totally unaware of the difference, if nothing else the seller can tell him to check that with his mechanic...

PS: acually, I did know that in Mercury gas engines the ECU also stores the hours split by RPM range - i.e. how many hours at idle, how many up to 1000rpm, up to 2000, and so on - all the way to 6000+. I'm wondering if that's also available in Cats (or any other diesels)? Just curious.

 

[flaming]

Hmmm for equal hull volume to a 24m mobo that burns £12000 on fastnet return you'd be in a 30m, say Gliss or Hamilton or something nice like that. Annualised sail cost would indeed be north of £40k, if you want quality. New sails (main, gen and kite) would be say £175k, every 2 seasons say, and the 600nm of the fastnet race might be 7% of the miles over the 2 years, which is £12k, haha!

Ah, but....

If your thing is racing, not "being on a boat" then the size of the accommodation is fairly irrelevant, it's the likelyhood of winning that's important!

This year the Fastnet was won by a 32 foot doublehanded boat... With a sail budget a long way south of £40k!

But even if you went to something like Ran (which is 72 foot and won the previous 2) your sail budget is probably going to be less than the 100k that you'd spend to move your boat for the same amount of time as an offshore campaign spends offshore in a season. So time vs miles...

And if you don't fancy the racing, the sail costs plummet, and per mile an 80 footer is going to have you beat over the 5 year life of their cruising sails, as they'll go a hell of a lot further than the racing boat. Sails might conceivably last much longer than 5 years too.

Be interesting to know if the comparison is similar at smaller sizes.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Actually, stating the not so bleedin' obvious, engine hours is NOT the most accurate measurement of engines wear.
The amount of fuel burnt is. In fact, that's the basis for the maintenance schedule in big commercial engines, rather than the hours.
Of course, it's neither easy to make average pleasure boaters understand that, nor give them a proof of the fuel burnt.
But that's a different matter altogether.

Of course I agree, but total fuel burn is not a figure which is available on most boats so operating hours remains the only basis on which buyers can judge the health of the engines without further investigation. I've never seen total fuel burn quoted for any used boat

 

[jfm]

Now, that's interesting.
Coming to think of it, it's very logical for any ECU equipped engine to store that number, among all others.
But I never bothered checking, so I wasn't aware of that.
Makes me wonder why they still use hours for the maintenance tables...
Maybe just because that's what people is used to look at.

Anyway, I would think that if you can reliably show to a buyer not only the hours, but also the fuel burnt (hence the average load at which the engine has been used), the "high hours=high wear" argument looses a lot of its strength.
Even with a skeptical buyer totally unaware of the difference, if nothing else the seller can tell him to check that with his mechanic...

PS: acually, I did know that in Mercury gas engines the ECU also stores the hours split by RPM range - i.e. how many hours at idle, how many up to 1000rpm, up to 2000, and so on - all the way to 6000+. I'm wondering if that's also available in Cats (or any other diesels)? Just curious.

Yup. Cat service book has a "mickey mouse" page that list service items by hours (new oil at 400h, or is it 250h, something like that anyway) then there is a "better" page that lists everything by fuel burnt, including strip down of valve gear, replacement of crank bearings, everything. As you say, in the world of electronic engines this data just drops right out of the ECU. Though if you record fuel purchased in the normal ship's log book, it would be easy to see fuel from there as well sans ECU.

Yes, I have heard the same about the data stored in Merc gas engines. Also lots of car ECUs record this, in case the car comes in for a new clutch under warranty or something. I think, but I am not sure, that the Cat ECU (and maybe all other modern marine engines) store this data by RPM and by % load factor. It is obviously just $0.01 for the manufacturer to capture this data and it must help them (a) avoid spurious warranty claims and (b) get good engineering data in case an engine series starts failing in service. For a marine engine, where the engine builder doesn't know anything about the final drive ratio (ie the prop) the % load factor is important; rpm alone would be incomplete data

 

[jfm]

Ah, but....

If your thing is racing, not "being on a boat" then the size of the accommodation is fairly irrelevant, it's the likelyhood of winning that's important!

This year the Fastnet was won by a 32 foot doublehanded boat... With a sail budget a long way south of £40k!

But even if you went to something like Ran (which is 72 foot and won the previous 2) your sail budget is probably going to be less than the 100k that you'd spend to move your boat for the same amount of time as an offshore campaign spends offshore in a season. So time vs miles...

And if you don't fancy the racing, the sail costs plummet, and per mile an 80 footer is going to have you beat over the 5 year life of their cruising sails, as they'll go a hell of a lot further than the racing boat. Sails might conceivably last much longer than 5 years too.

Be interesting to know if the comparison is similar at smaller sizes.

Yup. You can definitely argue this lots of different ways. It all depends on what you want to compare with. I was "just sayin"...!

 

[sarabande]

somehow, I don't think we are going to succeed in persuading jfm to sell the mobo and buy a raggie next time.

(Well, if he did, that would make a really good build thread.)

Astonishing figures, but hey, you can't take it with you, and it keeps lots of ornary people in good jobs.

 

[jfm]

somehow, I don't think we are going to succeed in persuading jfm to sell the mobo and buy a raggie next time.

(Well, if he did, that would make a really good build thread.)

Ahh, but come retirement time I might switch to rag and stick. A custom CNB, or an Oyster 80 genre of boat, I was thinking. When your diary is mostly leisure time one of these would be a whole pile of fun, and a beautiful bit of boatbuilding to stare at and smile.

 

[benjenbav]

How's your bro's project coming on? Haven't heard much since his original question as to what sort of base engine he should look for. Could really do with some pictorial update, if poss.

 

[jfm]

How's your bro's project coming on? Haven't heard much since his original question as to what sort of base engine he should look for. Could really do with some pictorial update, if poss.

He's been busy so hasn't started. I'll get on his case. He is close to ordering either Cummins or John Deere's, so all ok on that front. A few weeks....

 

[Sheppy]

I was curious about the costs involved in being able to say "hold tight" and shoving those levers back, watching that bow rise and hearing the whoops of joy of your passengers

Is it just me, but if you 'shoved those levers back' the bow would sink and I doubt you'd here whoops of joy from your passengers or are proper big boats setup differently

I guess it all depends on the size of boat and engine really, mines really quite economical (if I can use that word in a boat forum ), but as said by a couple of others, it's often the big bills in between - in fact fuel has been my lowest cost all season!!!!!!!

 

[Vitesse]

We burned up around £70 of excess fuel on a daytrip from Frogmore (near Salcombe) to Dartmouth and back last bank holiday.

And that was in our little boat. We didn't hang around, mind.

Our fuel budget is a consideration but taken as part of our overall boating costs. A fantastic day out on the water (which is the whole point) is worth the financial cost as far as we are concerned. Most weekends it's a short trip and a few mackerel, though!

Very interesting to read about other people's situations.

 

[superheat6k]

Interesting thread this one. Now coming at this from a totally different perspective, for me approx 100 hours PA on a 40' flybridge Cruiser saves me at least £2,000 towards a nice cruise.

This won't be the case if I sailed 'up,t,North', as seems the case for the OP, but ...

40' PB mooring Upper Hamble £4,300
40' Yacht mooring say Mercury on the lower Hamble £8,300

Annual fuel spend for 100 hours ~ £2,000

Other maintenance costs for sail or power fairly balance each other. I am also lucky to live in Hamble, so having the boat nearby is a no brainer.

So putting up with lowering my radar arch sometimes (takes 10 seconds) and a nice meander for an extra 20 minutes up river, I save £2,000 PA towards SWMBOs cruise, compared with having a 40' yacht, and I don't have to tack, plus I can get to Weymouth or Cherbourg in around 3 or 4 hours. I also have two loos, a decent shower and SWMBO stays dry and warm even in December.

Just a balance that there are certain advantages to PBs as well.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I'm a closet raggie (just spent a week sailing a Hanse 400 ) don't be fooled into thinking sailing is free, don't forget the cost of sail cleaning, replacing halyards and shrouds and periodically a new set of sails. MOBOs pay per mile, sail boats get big big bills periodically.

35 footer worth maybe 80k. Sails are hosed down in the garden and dried at home - practical experience is that professional sail cleaning is no more effective. Sails last 10 years or more depending on whether you race or not. Much less if you race. Cost of a new suite maybe £2500 so say £250 pa. Halyards dont get replaced in the time scale I have kept a boat ( typically 7 years) except with the current one where I had to get rid of old wire rope ones. Cost £100 off ebay for dynema for main and genoa. Shrouds backstay forestay etc wire rope rigging was from memory about £900 and is OK for 10 years.

For a typical year of maybe 1500 miles, these costs pale into insignificance by comparison with mobo diesel costs. Good job - I could not afford the latter

As a guide, my sailing costs averaged over 14 years are £2687.5 pa all in but excluding berthing at home marina. Thats everything from maintenance to antifoul to new kit to fuel to marinas away etc From previous surveys I am somewhere in the middle cost wise. yes it is a bit sad that I actually know what I'm spending but then I am on a budget

 

[benjenbav]

Hopefully I've helped out our friends across the great divide with some mobeconomics here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ng-mobo-to-slow-down-for-a-raggie#post4390234

 

[DAKA]

I don't have the data but will try to capture it next time I go out - this coming weekend. My proposed method, and please everyone feel free to comment/critique, is simply to use the "trip" total fuel burn read out on the electronics.

Step 1: get the boat to constant 20knots straight line, reset trips (for fuel from ECUs, and for miles logged by GPS) to zero then record fuel litres burn @ 20 knots steady state, for say 3 nm distance covered.
Step 2: as above, but after say 1nm reduce the boat to 5 knots, then immediately accelerate back up to steady state 20 knots, and complete the same 3nm

Record the delta in litres burnt.

Now this isn't perfect. It all depends upon what you define as your step 2. If you drive faster than 20 knots to make up for the "lost time" caused by slowing down then step 2 will tend to burn more even more fuel. But for a start I'll do it per step 1+2 above I think, so as to keep it simple

3 x up/down in the centre mile may help eliminate abnormalities ?

Well thought through and I hope I am wrong !

Spending 'a round of drinks' in order to allow a 23ft raggie an enjoyable time sailing is arguably morally correct.

Spending 'a round of drinks' in order to allow a 23ft raggie an enjoyable time pulling our pizzas is morally incorrect , are you sure the time and 'round of drinks' couldnt be better spent at the bar

 

[Hurricane]

Just a few stats from me

at 10 knots we burn about 25 litres per hour per engine
at 25 knots that goes up to about 175 litres per hour per engine
and yesterday, I opened her up to 31 knots where she said she was doing about 230 litres per hour per engine

Just looked at the fuel burn stats on the engine management system and it reads just over 42,000 litres per engine since new.

So, Deleted User/MapisM what SHOULD be the fuel burn?

It won't affect the way we run our boat though - we have just done a run to Denia and back through Valencia - probably in the region of 250 miles and the guages are still reading over three quarters full.
Just off the the fuel dock now so I will know exactly how much we burned and I'll look up the exact mileage later.

 

[rustybarge]

Just a few stats from me

at 10 knots we burn about 25 litres per hour per engine
at 25 knots that goes up to about 175 litres per hour per engine
and yesterday, I opened her up to 31 knots where she said she was doing about 230 litres per hour per engine

Just looked at the fuel burn stats on the engine management system and it reads just over 42,000 litres per engine since new.

So, Deleted User/MapisM what SHOULD be the fuel burn?

It won't affect the way we run our boat though - we have just done a run to Denia and back through Valencia - probably in the region of 250 miles and the guages are still reading over three quarters full.
Just off the the fuel dock now so I will know exactly how much we burned and I'll look up the exact mileage later.

A helicopter is a much cheaper form of transport, now I know why it's derigeur on super yachts...it saves money!

Could you get a heli pad fitted to your flybridge.........?

 

[oceanfroggie]

If one is lucky enough to be able to own, maintain and operate a motor cruiser, most won't spoil the experience by a focus on bean counting. Things cost, and costs are relative to the return one "feels" one gets from any hobby or any way of life. It's nice to share cruising with others.