On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:10:38 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



My reasoning:

1. In general, smaller boats are used more for fishing, skiing, tubing
and other single day boating activities. They usually are "go fast"
boats and burn quite a bit of fuel at or near WOT. So, other than the
few that putt-putt around for an afternoon, a weekend of typical boating
activities on a smaller boat
that require high throttle settings can be quite expensive at today's
fuel prices.

2. With the exception of some high performance sportsfish type boats,
bigger boats are more efficient in their fuel usage. They can carry
more people, more equipment, more overall "stuff" and the gallons burned
per hour won't change much due to load changes. Furthermore, big boats
typically aren't used for "go fast" afternoon recreational activities.
A leisurely cruise to a favorite port can be an all day pleasure trip
for a number of people at a relatively low fuel burn rate.

For example, at cruise speed (19 knots) our Navigator burns about 25
gallons of diesel fuel per hour. This is on a boat that, loaded with
fuel, water and all our "stuff" probably displaces around 40,000 lbs. or
more. If I drop that speed down to 10-12 knots, I'll bet it burns less
than half that. Also, it holds 500 gallons of fuel, so we can go quite a
while without worrying about
where to get fuel.

3. My final point. A smaller boat is used, then hauled or tied up at
a slip until the next usage. There's not much else to do on it. It can
be washed quickly, maybe the owner can hang out for a while, but usually
it's a day event. A bigger boat has more to offer in terms of
function, in my opinion. I still enjoy spending 3 or 4 days or more at
a time, several times during the summer, "living" aboard the boat,
either at the slip or occasionally swinging on a mooring. I don't
necessarily need to burn fuel to enjoy it.

Often, I simply putter around doing maintenance chores during the day
and enjoying the occasional visits of others with boats at the marina or
other visiting friends. Then, when all but a few leave for home, the
rest of us enjoy the evening cool air shooting the breeze or in quiet
solitude if we choose. When it's time for sleep, there's a very
comfortable queen size bed awaiting. And .... in my opinion ....
there's nothing better than a cup of coffee in the morning while
watching the sun rise.

Then ... there's the fun of riding out the occasional storms.

Eisboch

So, smaller boats are for families with children, bigger boats are
strictly adult fare. ;-)

On Apr 29, 10:07 pm, thunder wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:36:35 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

Anyway, to sherrif
chuckies point, my children (the next generation of spenders) and many
or their peers are moving toward greener play across the board. Kayaking
(touring), indoor rock climbing, and bike trips are big, vacations are
no longer Daytona, but New Orleans for cleanup and culture.

Not trying to put a damper on your optimism, greener play is clearly a
good thing, but I wonder how much is purely due to age, and not a
different philosophy. I know my play activities were more physically
intensive, and less energy intensive, when I was in my twenties, than
they are now. I'd also point out most most twenty-year-olds, starting
out raising families, buying houses, etc. don't have the economic means
to be heavily involved in recreational boating. Did you ever wonder why
this newsgroup is populated with the middle-aged?

I don't quite agree. My generation is a lot more physical in play than
my parents. And I suspect the next will carry it's healthy green
philosophy even later into middle and even old age. My dad did not
work out an hour a day (after work) as I do now at my age (50), did
not eat nearly as well and was not nearly as eco-knowledgable. I guess
we will have to see. And on a side note, if I were to guess, most of
the posters here are at least retirement age or better. Just a guess.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:27:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The difference is the speed at which you play. Consider the differences in
a couple of boat examples:

Boat "A": 25' something with a 225 hp gas outboard or a 300 hp I/O setup.
Boat displaces about 5K-6K lbs. With a couple of people aboard plus "stuff"
what is it's fuel burn at "cruise" which is probably 32-35 kts?

Boat "B": 50' something with twin, 370hp turbodiesels. Boat displaces
38k-40k lbs. With any legal number of people aboard plus all their "stuff"
what is it's fuel burn rate at "cruise" which is 18-19 kts?

Betcha Boat "B" (which is over 7 times heavier) is burning fuel at a
comparable rate to boat "A".

If so, which boat is more efficient?

It's easy enough to balpark the numbers.

I happen to own a Boat "A", SeaRay 270 Sundeck, actually 26.5 ft, 5800
lbs dry, 320 hp I/O gas. It cruises 25 to 30 kts and burns 12 to 15
gph, averaging a little better than 2 nautical miles per gallon.

Boat "B" will typically burn 25 to 30 gph averaging about .7 nautical
miles per gallon.

So in theory Boat "A" is about 3 times as efficient ignoring weight.

Boat "B" however is 6 or 7 times heavier so on a per pound basis is
about twice as efficient as Boat "A".

It all depends what your boating objectives are.

My experience with larger boats indicates that fuel costs are a
significantly smaller percentage of annual operating costs. As an
example, on our GB49, fuel costs are less than 30% of annual, even in
a year where we burn 5,000 gallons. The big numbers other than fuel
are maintenance, depreciation/amortization, and insurance. If I had
to pay for marina storage that would reduce fuel percentage even more.

On the 26 ft I/O however, fuel costs are over 50 to 70% of annual
doing ball park calculations.

Based on all that, I'd conclude that higher fuel prices impact small
to mid size boats more than larger ones.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:27:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The difference is the speed at which you play. Consider the differences
in
a couple of boat examples:

Boat "A": 25' something with a 225 hp gas outboard or a 300 hp I/O setup.
Boat displaces about 5K-6K lbs. With a couple of people aboard plus
"stuff"
what is it's fuel burn at "cruise" which is probably 32-35 kts?

Boat "B": 50' something with twin, 370hp turbodiesels. Boat displaces
38k-40k lbs. With any legal number of people aboard plus all their
"stuff"
what is it's fuel burn rate at "cruise" which is 18-19 kts?

Betcha Boat "B" (which is over 7 times heavier) is burning fuel at a
comparable rate to boat "A".

If so, which boat is more efficient?

It's easy enough to balpark the numbers.

I happen to own a Boat "A", SeaRay 270 Sundeck, actually 26.5 ft, 5800
lbs dry, 320 hp I/O gas. It cruises 25 to 30 kts and burns 12 to 15
gph, averaging a little better than 2 nautical miles per gallon.

Boat "B" will typically burn 25 to 30 gph averaging about .7 nautical
miles per gallon.

So in theory Boat "A" is about 3 times as efficient ignoring weight.

Boat "B" however is 6 or 7 times heavier so on a per pound basis is
about twice as efficient as Boat "A".

It all depends what your boating objectives are.



I should have qualified the efficiency question in a better way. I was
looking at it from the weight point of view and in terms of how much fuel
was being used to move it.

Agreed with the objectives issue. My point was that bigger boats aren't
necessarily "less green" than smaller ones, depending on how both types are
used. I'll bet I use less fuel on a leisurely cruise over to Martha's
Vineyard on the Navigator than I would spending an afternoon pulling kids on
a tube or waterskiing on a boat like the Scout I recently sold.

Now, the GB is a different story altogether. I couldn't burn a quarter of a
tank in a day if I tried.

Eisboch

On Apr 29, 11:29?am, JR North wrote:
Just who do you expect is
stupid (and rich) enough to fork over 120k (that's unfinanced) to do the
trailer boat thing? Buy a brand new truck to tow the boat? Come ON.....
JR


Maybe the guys in the market for used boats like this one?

http://tinyurl.com/2gv66f


Somehow I just can't quite see that going down the road behind a $2000
beater truck. Not saying it wouldn't or couldn't happen, but I would
be surprised to see it done routinely.

And, heck yes it's possible to boat really, really, cheaply. Strap a
little car-topper upside down over an 88 Honda Accord and head for the
beach. When there, row around or hang a 3-5 HP outboard on the back.
It doesn't have to be expensive, it's just that most folks prefer
something above a minimalist experience.

On Apr 29, 12:40�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:53:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing





wrote:
On 29 Apr 2007 06:06:49 -0700, wf3h wrote:

Some folks are speculating that gas can hit $4/gallon this year. Fuel
dock prices could shoot above $5. Any idea at what point people will
just stop boating? This is a form of the 'luxury' tax a few years ago
that collapsed the yacht makers. why WOULDN'T gas prices have the same
effect?

That's a good point. *Personally, I think last year the market tested
$3/g and pretty quickly backed off that because demand dropped
significantly.

They are certainly going to try it again this year, but I can't see it
moving up much past $3/g again without demand dropping. *After the 75%
runup over the past two years (with Katrina being the excuse), the
average joe on the street isn't going to have much left over after
going to work and paying for food, the mortgage and other expenses.

It's interesting that some in the professional services industries,
like orthodontic dentists, dentists and even doctors are seeing a
decrease in their gross incomes because the average schmoe can't
afford a co-pay even. *Trades people are even feeling it because their
prices have had to increase due to energy and compensation insurance
increases.

You have to remember that the real rate of inflation this year
(including food/energy/services) is about 13% and it could go higher.
That alone is certainly going to impact boating, never mind fuel
costs.

And now, speaking of boating, I'm done and gone. *Gonig out to get
some drive time on a twin diesel Topaz. *Gotta learn the ins and outs
of this twin inboard stuff if I'm going to buy Eisboch's *Navigator.
:) *[1]

WHOO HOO!!!

[1] Not that I'm going to buy Eisboch's Navigator, but in this life
and with me in charge, you never know. *:)

Tom, I figured you'd be upgrading to the Sea Vee 390 any day now. Surely
the price of gas will have no bearing:

http://tinyurl.com/2lzqw9

(Click on "Check out the new 390" at the bottom of the page.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"With a fuel capacity of 570 gallons, range can exceed 650 miles with
triple outboards"

Sounds economical to me. (not). $2500 fill-up for about 15 hours of
running time. (Site says the most economical speeds are at about 40
mph).

But once again it's somewhat relevant. What's the price on that thing
with 3 outboards? Something north of $500k?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:19:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Now, the GB is a different story altogether. I couldn't burn a quarter of a
tank in a day if I tried.

I could. The 49 with twin DDs is quite a different animal that a 36
with a smallish single.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 29, 11:29?am, JR North wrote:
Just who do you expect is
stupid (and rich) enough to fork over 120k (that's unfinanced) to do the
trailer boat thing? Buy a brand new truck to tow the boat? Come ON.....
JR


Maybe the guys in the market for used boats like this one?

http://tinyurl.com/2gv66f


Somehow I just can't quite see that going down the road behind a $2000
beater truck. Not saying it wouldn't or couldn't happen, but I would
be surprised to see it done routinely.

And, heck yes it's possible to boat really, really, cheaply. Strap a
little car-topper upside down over an 88 Honda Accord and head for the
beach. When there, row around or hang a 3-5 HP outboard on the back.
It doesn't have to be expensive, it's just that most folks prefer
something above a minimalist experience.



We are not saying that goes down the road behind a beater truck. That goes
down the road behind a vehicle owned by an upper middle class income person.
A $128,000 used boat is not the middle class boat of choice. My boat is
very nice and replacement is about $50k. Looks very good now and would sell
for about $25k. But a family with kids does not need most of the boats that
are being peddled these days. A 2004 Ski Nautique for $47.5k
http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/b...ck&searchtype=

Give us a break. Only a fairly well to do young professional or somebody in
hock to the eyeballs will be able to afford that if they have a family. Or
the parents were well off. Lots of people have come here and been abused
for thinking of a 18-19' Bayliner Capri. A family can afford that. Even at
$18-19k new. You can tow it with most midsized cars with care. And no
mountains to tow over. I think we will see more of the under $20k boats.
The makers of those will be the ones to survive. Those and the Davis Boats
types. Custom $100k fishing boats for the guy who is late middle age, and
can afford the tariff.

On 29 Apr 2007 21:07:19 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/2gv66f


Somehow I just can't quite see that going down the road behind a $2000
beater truck. Not saying it wouldn't or couldn't happen, but I would
be surprised to see it done routinely.

Frankly it's not really a trailer boat at all. Too wide in most
states without a wide load permit, and too heavy for anything but a
triple axle trailer and a super duty truck.

Trailerability for most boats tops out at about 24 to 26 feet.

On 29 Apr 2007 21:14:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

"With a fuel capacity of 570 gallons, range can exceed 650 miles with
triple outboards"

Sounds economical to me. (not). $2500 fill-up for about 15 hours of
running time. (Site says the most economical speeds are at about 40
mph).

But once again it's somewhat relevant. What's the price on that thing
with 3 outboards? Something north of $500k?

Economy means different things to different people. Here in Florida
economy could mean sufficient fuel range to round trip the Bahamas
without filling up over there.