On Apr 29, 7:01 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:12:28 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:







"Animal05" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:09:31 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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?

It ought to, and maybe it will lead to a downsizing in boats. Some of
the best fun I've ever had in boats has been in small boats with small
engines, and in small sailboats. Screw the oil companies and their
partners in crime in the Gulf States.

Yes..if all the citizens of the western world (especially the US) would
think like that, we'd have half a chance with those %^$%^ oil barons.

That Harry is such a neat guy, right Don? Do you reckon he'll sell the
25'
Parker and the 36' lobsta' boat anytime soon?

Funny that donnie boy would say that, considering the amount of oil the US
gets from Canada

The more you guzzle and create a high demand, the higher price I have to pay
at the pumps. Simple enough for you?

Well, let's see. The big Yamaha on the back of that 25'er probably burns
10-15 gph cruising. How much do you reckon the powerplant in the lobsta
boat burns. Maybe a couple of big gassers in there, or a couple humongus
diesels. What do you think? Is your hero helping your cause?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Someone should tell the Gilmore Girls that viagra is a lot cheaper
than double diesels, and probably just as effective. 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. Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Someone should tell the Gilmore Girls that viagra is a lot cheaper
than double diesels, and probably just as effective. 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. Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.


I am curious. What makes you think that a 20'-25' outboard or I/O powered
boat being used for it's intended purposes is any more fuel efficient than a
40'-50' twin diesel cruiser being used for it's intended purpose? The
truth may surprise you.

Eisboch

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:57:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...


Someone should tell the Gilmore Girls that viagra is a lot cheaper
than double diesels, and probably just as effective. 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. Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.


I am curious. What makes you think that a 20'-25' outboard or I/O powered
boat being used for it's intended purposes is any more fuel efficient than a
40'-50' twin diesel cruiser being used for it's intended purpose? The
truth may surprise you.

You know what was interesting to me on this whole twin engine deal I
did today?

We used less fuel (diesel) than I would have used on the Contender
doing the same kind of stuff.

On the other hand, the Contender would move a hell of a lot faster and
cruised higher than the Topaz's top end.

I think overall, the diesels would be cheaper in the long run, but you
just can't get the oommph you can with outboards. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:57:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...


Someone should tell the Gilmore Girls that viagra is a lot cheaper
than double diesels, and probably just as effective. 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. Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.


I am curious. What makes you think that a 20'-25' outboard or I/O powered
boat being used for it's intended purposes is any more fuel efficient than
a
40'-50' twin diesel cruiser being used for it's intended purpose? The
truth may surprise you.

You know what was interesting to me on this whole twin engine deal I
did today?

We used less fuel (diesel) than I would have used on the Contender
doing the same kind of stuff.

On the other hand, the Contender would move a hell of a lot faster and
cruised higher than the Topaz's top end.

I think overall, the diesels would be cheaper in the long run, but you
just can't get the oommph you can with outboards. :)


Ahh, you spoiled my carefully planned setup of " justwaitafrekinminute".

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?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:57:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Someone should tell the Gilmore Girls that viagra is a lot cheaper
than double diesels, and probably just as effective. 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. Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.

I am curious. What makes you think that a 20'-25' outboard or I/O powered
boat being used for it's intended purposes is any more fuel efficient than
a
40'-50' twin diesel cruiser being used for it's intended purpose? The
truth may surprise you.
You know what was interesting to me on this whole twin engine deal I
did today?

We used less fuel (diesel) than I would have used on the Contender
doing the same kind of stuff.

On the other hand, the Contender would move a hell of a lot faster and
cruised higher than the Topaz's top end.

I think overall, the diesels would be cheaper in the long run, but you
just can't get the oommph you can with outboards. :)


Ahh, you spoiled my carefully planned setup of " justwaitafrekinminute".

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?

Eisboch




Your assumption is that Boat B is fully loaded with people and stuff.
Not often, I'd bet.

Boat A is similar to my Parker. I don't run it at 32-35 knots. I run at
23-27 knots under the right conditions, and keep my fuel burn "around"
10 gph. That's with four adults aboard. The gauge I watch most closely
is the ol' GPH meter. :}

At 40 mph, Yo Ho burns about 20 gph. No thanks.

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 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.

On 29 Apr 2007 15:36:35 -0700, wrote:

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.

My kids are pretty much the same way with respect to other sports type
boating. All of them own kayacks (THE HORROR!!) and canoes. They
like my boats, but it just doensn't do much for them - they'd rather
participate in a more physical way. Which is great for them.

I know that locally, there are a quite a few fisherman who have
fishing kyacks and canoes with smallish electric motors. I'm a little
too big to use something like that, although now that the Princecraft
is down south, I might think that one through a little more. It's
tough to launch the Ranger on smaller ponds. However, with the
arthritis problems I have, a kayack or canoe is a little small for me
to be comfortable - not to mention that at 6'3" and now 235 (from 270)
that's a little cramped.

I've been thinking recently of getting one of those little Coleman
skiffs, a pontoon type boat I can throw in the back of the pickup or
even making one using cold molding techniques. I've got an extra
trailer (for the PWC one of the kids once owned) so it wouldn't be
that tough to handle a cold molded one.

I just had two of my kids return from New Orleans and I have several
friends who still live in New Orleans - according to them, it's a
freakin' wasteland and will never recover. Part of the town are in
decent shape apparently, like the French Quarter and parts of Metarie
(sp?), but the rest is just junk. I havne't been back since Katrina,
but I'm thinking of returning this summer just to see for myself.

Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.

I think it's a little early to make that kind of determination, but I
take your point.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 29 Apr 2007 15:36:35 -0700, wrote:

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.

My kids are pretty much the same way with respect to other sports type
boating. All of them own kayacks (THE HORROR!!) and canoes. They
like my boats, but it just doensn't do much for them - they'd rather
participate in a more physical way. Which is great for them.

I know that locally, there are a quite a few fisherman who have
fishing kyacks and canoes with smallish electric motors. I'm a little
too big to use something like that, although now that the Princecraft
is down south, I might think that one through a little more. It's
tough to launch the Ranger on smaller ponds. However, with the
arthritis problems I have, a kayack or canoe is a little small for me
to be comfortable - not to mention that at 6'3" and now 235 (from 270)
that's a little cramped.

I've been thinking recently of getting one of those little Coleman
skiffs, a pontoon type boat I can throw in the back of the pickup or
even making one using cold molding techniques. I've got an extra
trailer (for the PWC one of the kids once owned) so it wouldn't be
that tough to handle a cold molded one.

I just had two of my kids return from New Orleans and I have several
friends who still live in New Orleans - according to them, it's a
freakin' wasteland and will never recover. Part of the town are in
decent shape apparently, like the French Quarter and parts of Metarie
(sp?), but the rest is just junk. I havne't been back since Katrina,
but I'm thinking of returning this summer just to see for myself.

Many of the local water ways are making provisions for much
smaller boats, and recreation and motor restrictions are getting
tougher every day. The overindulgent will still have their big boats,
but they will pay though the nose, be subjected to more restrictions,
and their numbers will drop due to financial attrition. I don't know
that the situation will ever improve for them from this point on. Once
the big manufacturers tool down, I don't see them coming back.

I think it's a little early to make that kind of determination, but I
take your point.

New Orleans proper will not ever be back to what it was. Both politics and
the land. At least they have cleaned up the 9th ward from all the destroyed
homes and business according to my neighbor who just came back while working
in Slidell for a Church Sponsored rebuilding of homes for the underinsured
and elderly. I was down there last June for Habitat for Humanity in
Slidell. Same time as the elections for mayor were going on. The people in
N.O. that remain are idiots! One said they were voting for Nagan. He had
only been in office 3 years and what could he have done. I had not been
back to N.O. since 1965, and you could see that even the French Quarter had
gotten a lot tackier since then. I used to enjoy weekends in N.O. while
stationed in Biloxi so saw it many times in that year. The Mississippi area
was devastated even more, and they are recovering a lot faster.