On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.

From my experience amongst fellow cruisers, they don't simply add
tankage below due to space constraints. Also, in many ports it is
necessary to use jerry cans to ferry the diesel between the pump and
the boat. It is not as straight forward as using a dock hose in many
places in the world when there are no marinas or alongside fuel docks.
Therefore one may as well keep the jerry cans full of fuel on the
deck. I carry two 20 litre (take 24 litres each) plastic jerry cans in
the sail locker beneath my forward double berth as absolute emergency
fuel. I could of course build a tank in there but I would rather keep
it as a pure sail locker. I could of course invest in the inflatable
tankage but would rather spend the money on something else.

Also, regardless of how much tankage, most of us seem to want to carry
that little bit more to extend our range - probably just human nature.
Besides, when one is done with crossing oceans, the built in tanks
will normally be more than enough. It's amazing how much of the space
that could be utilised for extra tankage is readily filled up with
other necessary 'stuff' such as spares, tools, provisions, folding
bikes (2), sleeping bags, mountain tents, scuba gear (3 sets), roller
blades (3 pair), shioes of various types for three people, clothing
for all seasons for 3 people, school books, spare engine oil, gear box
oil, etc., etc., etc., no matter the size of the vessel.

regards
Peter

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.


Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands
in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip,
several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A
little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage
might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel
is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to
bring some back?

Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin
and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:48:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Your very first priority
should always be staying financially solvent and having people paying YOU
interest on your investments. Neither a lender nor borrower be . .

And just how do you expect to earn interest without lending money?

How about buying bonds? How about buying half a dozen shares of Berkshire
Hathaway"

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:23:53 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Your very first priority
should always be staying financially solvent and having people paying YOU
interest on your investments. Neither a lender nor borrower be . .

How about buying bonds? How about buying half a dozen shares of Berkshire
Hathaway"

When you buy bonds, you're lending to the issuer of the bonds. When you
buy
Berkshire Hathaway you're getting dividends (and perhaps capital gains
when
you sell), not interest. You only earn interest by lending.

Semantics. You get a return on your investment. You don't lend; you purchase
a product that escalates in value if you're smart about. You are not
"lending" when you buy (notice the word buy!) bonds or by shares of stock.
Lending is to hand over money to a client and then expect to have it be paid
back over a period of time with interest.

Dummy!

Wilbur Hubbard

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:12:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:23:53 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Your very first priority
should always be staying financially solvent and having people paying YOU
interest on your investments. Neither a lender nor borrower be . .

How about buying bonds? How about buying half a dozen shares of Berkshire
Hathaway"

When you buy bonds, you're lending to the issuer of the bonds. When you
buy
Berkshire Hathaway you're getting dividends (and perhaps capital gains
when
you sell), not interest. You only earn interest by lending.

Semantics. You get a return on your investment. You don't lend; you purchase
a product that escalates in value if you're smart about. You are not
"lending" when you buy (notice the word buy!) bonds or by shares of stock.
Lending is to hand over money to a client and then expect to have it be paid
back over a period of time with interest.

I think the "borrower or lender" saw is meant to suggest "don't take
risk." Might be wrong. Bonds and stocks involve risk.
Gov guaranteed CD's, which money is lent out by the CD issuer,
presumably have no risk.
But hey, that was Polonius talking, and he was full of it anyway.
Or so sayeth scholars, averring that he spoke in what were cliches
even in the 15th century. We've come a long way, and some of our
cliches even farther.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
. Bonds and stocks involve risk.
Gov guaranteed CD's, which money is lent out by the CD issuer,
presumably have no risk.

Governments get around that one by allowing inflation to depreciate the
value of your investment.
Sure, you get your money back but it is not worth the same as when you put
it in.

On 2008-06-24 13:12:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You are not "lending" when you buy (notice the word buy!) bonds or by
shares of stock. Lending is to hand over money to a client and then
expect to have it be paid back over a period of time with interest.

Bonds or CDs are simply giving money to an entity in receipt for a
*promise* from them to pay you that value plus a bit some time in the
future.

Whether you equate that giving to 'lending' or 'buying', all you have
in return is a promise. At most, it's a piece of paper with intrinsic
value of $0.000007.

The higher the risk of your not getting the full value back, the more
they promise to give you back.

TANSTAAFL!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:12:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

You are not
"lending" when you buy (notice the word buy!) bonds or by shares of stock.
Lending is to hand over money to a client and then expect to have it be
paid
back over a period of time with interest.

So you didn't get beyond high school, Wilbur?.

Ph.D.!

A bond holder is a creditor--someone who has lent money to the issuer, or
who bought the debt from the person who originally lent the money.

Wrong. When I buy a government treasury bond for a thousand dollars it is as
good as a 1000 dollar bill as far as being secure. But, unlike the 1000
dollar bill, which depreciates along with the inflation rate, it grows in
value at a guaranteed rate of increase. For 1000 dollars I BUY a piece of
paper that inceases in value and is guaranteed to do so. It is no different
than buying an ounce of gold except gold has a downside risk while the
treasury bond does not. I am not lending, I am buying. Case closed.

Wilbur Hubbard

I'd like to thank everyone for their inputs. My response:

1. I did not count opportunity cost twice.

2. Opportunity cost is explained he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

3. It is foolish to ignore opportunity cost.

4. I have some sailing experience so that is helpful.


It looks like downsizing and switching over to a sailboat is the way
to go. To reduce opportunity cost and depreciation I'll look at buying
an older, but solid boat in good condition. To reduce the fuel costs I
will look at buying a sailboat and getting some experience on larger
boats, about 32' in length. I can go to living on a mooring (have to
convince the wife) which will zero the dock fee.Solar panels should
supply all my energy needs. Since I have the time I can do most of
the ordinary repairs myself. I have to get rid of the boat asap as it
drops in value daily. I can't ship my current boat to Europe because
of the expense and continued expense. I was hoping to find some
friendly country south of the border.

I should have done this all in the beginning but my eyes were bigger
than my wallet. I never considered escalating costs, but then only an
economic savant with tremendous discipline would ever act so prudently
in the first place.

Summarizing, the wisest choice for those of limited/fixed means to go
cruising:

a. Buy an older, solid boat in excellent condition.

b. Live aboard on a mooring.

c. Buy a sailboat.

d. Keep the boat simple and do the repairs yourself.

e. Rely on solar power.

f. Watermaker?????




Now I have a few more questions about sailboat. From what I've seen
the smallest I would go is about 27 feet, the largest about 32 feet.
What boats would you guys recommend that I look at? It would be me and
my wife aboard, we have no physical handicaps, I'm 6 ft tall. I want a
solid, reliably built boat that is simple and easy to handle. I prefer
a diesel inboard auxiliary. Also what is the downside to living on a
mooring other than the obvious? Where are the best places to do this
in the US? I would imagine California is not too friendly to this type
of lifestyle plus the sailing is not as nice as the Caribbean.

Thanks everyone, you are a knowledgeable and experienced group.

Tim Shavinsky