 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / August 2009PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE
Check out this PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE at http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com Too many upgrades in 2008/2009 to list here. Nice boat set up for Caribbean cruising and since we now own two boats we are highly motivated to sell. David Kane PDQ39cat@ gmail.com http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com > Check out this PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE at > http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > PDQ39cat@ gmail.com > http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com A Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars??! You need to look outside! The marine industry has collapsed! A Hundred Seventy Five THOUSAND Dollars! .....for an outboard-powered boat..... Whoda thunk it?....  Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? >> Check out this PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE at >> http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Whoda thunk it?.... Don't complain, the guy is trying. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) > Don't complain, the guy is trying. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) He's gotta be a broker. Noone is that stupid. Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? >> Don't complain, the guy is trying. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >He's gotta be a broker. Noone is that stupid. A guy down the dock died and his girl friend was left with the boat. She (actually she was a bit loony) got the idea in her head that the boat, a 35 year old Amil (the first design) was worth a lot of money. She tried to list it with an agent, the agent wouldn't list it - she wanted too much money - she finally hung a sign on the bow. About 8 months after the guy died she sold the boat for 121,000 dollars - Cash. Two guys from Pattaya came by, saw the boat, asked the price, went to the ATM and got a holding price, Came back with the cash a few days later. The girl got a guy to sail the boat to Langkawi (duty & tax free) where the deal was done and she came back laughing. You never know :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) > You never know :-) One of my former neighbors came here on probation after being convicted for working for a drug cartel the Feds finally broke up. He never touched drugs, never sold/used/way too smart. No, what he did was to transport MONEY from the USA to various South American countries, the profits from the drug sales. They had a house in a nice residential community, gated, nice pool and all, that was literally full of money! He told me they had trouble getting the garage door to close at times when more money was coming into the house than the runners like him could transport out! There was even a nice family living in the house, or the appearance of a family living in the house, and only a couple of people, like him, were allowed to go to/from the house, including the "father" and "mother" of the family, who were also runners. You'd never know what went on there. I was fascinated listening to it. I can understand where paying $US200K for a 20K boat would be of no consequence to these people at all. They regularly used a boat a couple of times, a very expensive boat, then simply sunk it offshore to dry up the trail of the DEA tracking it, no matter the cost. It's all part of the cost of doing business........ I bet her boat is running or was running something like this.....The use of high speed craft for drugs is only in the movies. They find drugs here in the damnest looking boats you ever saw, totally out of character....slow, inconspicuous boats are all fine.... Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? >> You never know :-) > >One of my former neighbors came here on probation after being convicted for >working for a drug cartel the Feds finally broke up. He never touched >drugs, never sold/used/way too smart. Way too smart? Then how come he was on probabtion? And how smart would someone have to be to think this guy's claims were in the least bit credible? Is a coastwise endorsement worth that much more? >> Check out this PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE at >> http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Whoda thunk it?.... Its still a seller's market for PDQ's. They stopped production of the 36 a few years ago and there simply aren't any high quality cats under 40' on the market now. And the over 40' cats are going for $400k+ new, so options are limited. Although the outboard powered PDQs usually go for a bit less, the 3 foot extensions are worth (assuming you like them) a premium. So asking $175K is certainly not out of range. >>> Check out this PDQ 39' sailing catamaran FOR SALE at >>> http://www.PDQ36.blogspot.com [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > bit less, the 3 foot extensions are worth (assuming you like them) a > premium. So asking $175K is certainly not out of range. Yes, those things appeal a lot to the 'trawler' crowd. But, outboards don't get it for the trawler crowd. Like you they'd rather have twin diesels so they can do more than their fair share of wrecking the environment. Wilbur Hubbard >Yes, those things appeal a lot to the 'trawler' crowd. But, outboards don't >get it for the trawler crowd. Like you they'd rather have twin diesels so >they can do more than their fair share of wrecking the environment. You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long range cruising. >>Yes, those things appeal a lot to the 'trawler' crowd. But, outboards don't >>get it for the trawler crowd. Like you they'd rather have twin diesels so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long >range cruising. It's a SAILBOAT with auxhilary engines, Wayne. It has virtually unlimited cruising range. >>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long >>range cruising. > > It's a SAILBOAT with auxhilary engines, Wayne. It has virtually > unlimited cruising range. True. She's Sec. of State not President. :) Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >True. She's Sec. of State not President. :) She does seem to get around! >>>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > She does seem to get around! A Beach Boys song just popped into my head! Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long >>range cruising. > >It's a SAILBOAT with auxhilary engines, Wayne. It has virtually >unlimited cruising range. Yes, that's theoretically true. I've owned a lot of sailboats however, and chartered a few others. They all needed to charge their batteries, motor in dead flat calms, motor sail in light wind, and get in and out of harbors against adverse winds. A typical outboard motor will do that for 6 to 12 hours before running out of fuel, and maybe 500 to 1,000 hours before needing major repairs. I've had some experience with that also. Then there's the additional risk of carrying gasoline aboard, the lack of any serious battery charging capability, and the lower unit pulling out of the water on wave tops. On the plus side, outboards are usually easier to hand start when the batteries die, and are easier/cheaper to replace at end of life. No thanks, not my choice for long range cruising. And yes, I'm quite familiar with the long history of people who have cruised with no power at all. This is the 21st century however. >>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >familiar with the long history of people who have cruised with no >power at all. This is the 21st century however. The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time sailing. It requires a different mindset. I prefer sailing precisely because it doesn't involve microwave ovens, widescreen TV, and a constant rumble to feed them and get where I'm going. If I wanted the conveniences of home, that's where I'd stay. What harbor took you 12 hours to motor out of? I'd like to know so I can avoid it! Motoring for my boat with an outboard consumes 1/2 gallon an hour at WOT. I don't recall the last time I ran at WOT. Possibly once or twice for short periods since I've owned this boat. I have the 9.9 Yamaha 4-stroke with the low gearing and huge prop, so in mild conditions, 1/4 throttle gets me to hull speed. Motorsailing usually means the outboard running at idle, which means maybe 70 miles to the gallon. I have a capacity of 11 gallons. All that said, I don't generally run the motor except to get in and out of restricted spaces. My range is limited by how much potable water and food I can reasonably carry, not how much fuel. I have the correct long travel bracket, installed properly, and the XL shaft. I have very little trouble with the prop coming out, regardless of conditions, and I'm decidedly not a fair weather only sailor. I've seen countless boats where it would be a problem even in calm waters because they simply didn't plan the install very well. I know none of this will convince you of anything, but it does demonstrate that what you said is a personal opinion based on your own experience and techniques, and not facts that necessarily apply to anyone else. Now we have two differing opinions, which makes this a discussion! >>>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >anyone else. Now we have two differing opinions, which makes this a >discussion! I think that the determining factor is "what kind" of cruising are you going to do. Coast wise, or "local area" (and I'm using that term to cover all areas where you know what the weather is going to be, or is likely to be) is one ball game but setting off for foreign lands can another. I'm not arguing one over the other but particularly near the equator it is quite possible that you will have to motor in order to get there. As a couple of examples, I have never had any appreciable wind coming up the Malacca Straits. Motored all the way, every time. Had a mate motored nearly a week coming back from India, a year ago. Talk to a few people who have been up the Red Sea. Most will tell you that they wish they had a bigger motor. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I personally wouldn't choose to sail worldwide in my present boat. I suppose it could be done, but not by me. People have circumavigated in less capable boats. As I pointed out, for me the limiting factors for long distance cruising would have to do more with the ability to carry enough water and food, not the choice of auxilary propulsion. I know of cruisers who have removed the engine rather than replace it when the time came. Made more capacity for transporting more important things. >>>>>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>>>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >the time came. Made more capacity for transporting more important >things. True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard a Lyle Hess Bristol Channel Cutter, essentially the same boat and there isn't much storage space. I think that they probably eat a lot of crackers and cheese and never take a bath in fresh water. And these are deep keel boats. When you take the modern canoe shaped boats with the bolt on keel I don't know where you'd put anything. This is probably one of the main reasons why you now see so many 40 foot plus cruising boats - storage space. Frankly, I don't reckon that removing the engine, just to have a pure sailing boat, is a smart move. There are too many places where you really do need an engine. Even in an anchorage. And of course, if you ever plan on going into a marina - forget it without an engine. and for all people talk about anchoring out sometimes it is nearly impossible. Singapore, for example, has only one small boat anchorage and I can guarantee that after one night you will leave it. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>> You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>>>>> not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Here in Sequim Wa, we have a motorless sailboat delivering organic veggies to the Seattle market. They've gutted the interior for cargo space and use a sweeps to go in and out of the marina. Gotta be green you know! Gordon > Here in Sequim Wa, we have a motorless sailboat delivering organic > veggies to the Seattle market. They've gutted the interior for cargo > space and use a sweeps to go in and out of the marina. > Gotta be green you know! > Gordon How green is your groin??? You could pull a hernia sweeping in something like that! Much snipped > Here in Sequim Wa, we have a motorless sailboat delivering organic >veggies to the Seattle market. They've gutted the interior for cargo >space and use a sweeps to go in and out of the marina. > Gotta be green you know! > Gordon Some years ago I was showing some commissioning engineers how the "sailing boats did it" at a harbor in central Java. We watched a 50 ft. sloop come in. A typical Indonesian working boat, sail made from a blue and white striped tarp, loaded with rattan till the deck was nearly awash. To get to the "small boat" anchorage the boat had to enter the harbor, sail nearly all the way across the harbor and then turn and moor in a small river. There wasn't much wind that day and the boats would come in down wind, turn a bit and reach across the harbor, losing wind all the way. About the time they got to the creek a sailor would leap over the side and swim frantically ashore. The sail would come down and the sailor who had swum ashore with a rope would take a couple of turns around a tree to snub the boat, the boat would hit the end of the rope and turn into the creek and drift to a stop. Sort of made you understand that there was quite a bit to knowing how to handle a boat :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Doing things the old way? Check the Galway Hookers on this film. http://www.wliw.org/productions/lifestyle/sailing-channel-theater/cruising-has-n o-limits/438/ \ g > True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack > enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) My dear Dorothy has studied Lynn's books and taken her to heart. Remember, please, that their first boat SERAFFYN was only 24 feet 7. We learn what we can learn from those who proceed us. For instance nav and anchor lights. D has decided we will use oil lights - modified the way Lynn suggests. A part of a cup of oil per night. No load on the battery. And a charming ambiance. We have the stock electric lights and I'll eventually replace the buulbs with LEDs. But the oil lamps are a definite keeper. And the fold-up bath tub from SERAFFYN(!). (They do stay clean, and they do eat well) And a lot of the other suggestions they have offered. (Like Larry's dining table) Bruce, I agree with you about going engine-less. But it I have to have a 40 footer and a diesel plant before I can wander off I'll never have a chance to go. So, 5600 pounds displacement - AND an outboard. Richard Not just the Spanish Main luv, the entire ocean, the entire wo'ld. Wherever we want to go we'll go. Thats what a ship is you know. Its not just a keel and a hull and a deck & sails, that's what a ship needs, but what a ship is... is freedom. >> True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack >> enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > that's what a ship needs, > but what a ship is... is freedom. Well, I have a 30' Sabre, which is certainly offshore capable, but it seems kind of small to me for any extended cruising. It would certainly be limited by storage, and at least on the left coast, I'd want (and am glad) I have a reliable inboard. Even in the bay, an outboard can be nearly unusable if there's decent chop, which is typical. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack >>> enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >reliable inboard. Even in the bay, an outboard can be nearly unusable if >there's decent chop, which is typical. I think I posted a URL for a Hungarian sailing a 27 ft. boat around the world. BUT, I had a peep at the boat after he had arrived here from Australia, i.e., had eaten a bunch of his supplies. Looking into the cubby from the cockpit there was just enough room to slide in and sleep. The rest of the time he must have spent in the cockpit as there was no room below. It probably highlights that the worst problem in sailing a small boat isn't seaworthiness it is storage space. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >> True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack >> enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Richard You don't need a 40 footer. Just get in and go with what you got. The motor is damned nice to have sometimes though :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>> True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack >>> enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Copy that! Will do! >>>> True. In fact I am not at all sure how the Pardys were able to pack >>>> enough grub and water into their little 28 ft. boat. I've been aboard [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Will do! A friend of mine has a philosophy "Just go!" and sails off whenever he gets the urge. Granted he carries out fairly continuous maintenance on the boat but doesn't let the fact that "he's got one more project to do" keep him in port. Granted he sometimes sails with second hand sails, his batteries aren't always new, and he usually has to crank the anchor in by hand, but he goes. and he always get's there and back. He did a six month trip to India last year and is talking about a trip to Sarawak this season. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) > The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all > along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > limited by how much potable water and food I can reasonably carry, not > how much fuel. Salty, I run that same motor. What size prop are you running? Mine is 9-3/4x6-1/2, but it seems to me to be too small and fast. >> The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >> along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >What size prop are you running? >Mine is 9-3/4x6-1/2, but it seems to me to be too small and fast. That may not be the high thrust motor. There were 2 or three prop options for mine, but all were 11-3/4" with different pitches. I think mine is either 9-1/2 or 11 pitch. The motor has different gearing from the regular 9.9 hp, too. Mine has 13:38 gears, while the regular 9.9 4-stroke has 13:27 gears The prop on mine looks like it belongs on a 60 hp motor. >>> The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >>> along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 4-stroke has 13:27 gears The prop on mine looks like it belongs on a > 60 hp motor. I can't find anything in the documentation that tells the gear ratio. I can't see .11 difference in gearing would make a huge amount of difference. I suspect it's all in the prop. If I could find an 11-3/4" low pitch prop that would fit it, I'd run it and see what happens. It the engine makes 5k RPM, it would be a keeper! Heck, I bet the boat would do wheelies! >>>> The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >>>> along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >see what happens. It the engine makes 5k RPM, it would be a keeper! >Heck, I bet the boat would do wheelies! Those are gear ratios. 13 to 38 is significantly lower than 13 to 27, and it makes a huge difference. Boiled down, those ratios are 1:2.92 vs 1:2.08 The High Thrust motor has a different lower leg to accomodate the big prop. You may not have room for it. What is the exact model number of your motor? > Those are gear ratios. 13 to 38 is significantly lower than 13 to 27, > and it makes a huge difference. Boiled down, those ratios are 1:2.92 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What is the exact model number of your motor? Yeah, room for the prop might make a difference (sheepish grin). Mine is an F9.9 ELRX(B?) >> Those are gear ratios. 13 to 38 is significantly lower than 13 to 27, >> and it makes a huge difference. Boiled down, those ratios are 1:2.92 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Mine is an F9.9 ELRX(B?) That's a long shaft, but unfortunately not the High Thrust model. It would really be worth it to investigate trading it in for the one specifically designed to push sailboats efficiently and quietly. >The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >conveniences of home, that's where I'd stay. What harbor took you 12 >hours to motor out of? I'd like to know so I can avoid it! Remember, my statement was that outboards are unsuited to **long range cruising**, however we want to define that. We're not talking about week end cruising, or one or two weeks on Long Island Sound with a fuel dock every 5 to 10 miles. You and Wilbur may be the only people I have ever heard of who were happy with their outboards. Even with inboard diesels most of the cruising sailors that we see in the Bahamas are carrying extra fuel on deck in jerry jugs. >>The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >>along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >cruising sailors that we see in the Bahamas are carrying extra fuel on >deck in jerry jugs. I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock more often than I do. >I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock >more often than I do. Actually we have a fuel range under power of close to 1,000 nautical miles, not bad for a 70,000 pound boat with a lot of amenities. Typically we don't stop at fuel docks at all except for dinghy gas. Coming north from Florida to Connecticut we'll stop once for fuel. We could have done this entire Abacos trip from western Florida and back on on fill up but I decided to add an extra 200 galons at Green Turtle Cay since their prices were reasonable and I wanted to increase my reserves. You may think you're a long range cruiser but I (politely) beg to differ. We've seen many hundreds of cruising sailboats in the last month and I can't think of any with outboards. People just don't do it and there are good reasons. > We've seen many hundreds of cruising sailboats in the last > month and I can't think of any with outboards. People just don't do > it and there are good reasons. Haven't been following this thread in any detail but the above caught my attention. Outboard engines? After dinghy power and maybe a margarita mixer, what are they good for other than to start a fire if you are careless? Lew >>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > month and I can't think of any with outboards. People just don't do > it and there are good reasons. While I tend to agree with the sentiment, I thing you could make the argument for a cruising boat with an outboard. The significant caveat is that if there's any pronounced chop, they tend to be ineffective. People tend to use inboards for things like get-there issues in less than ideal situations. The no-wind situation doesn't seem to me to be a big deal with either type of engine. I'd be interested to hear about Salty's experience on his recent trip, and if he experienced any situations that made use of the outboard in less than decent conditions. I occasionally teach on Colgate 26s. They have an outboard, and it works quite well, but the transom is low enough to moderate most of the prop out of the water problems. I taught on a Folkboat a couple of times. It had an engine well, but the club mounted the outboard on the transom. It worked, but it was a beast, either interferring with the tiller or had the prop coming out of the water. I taught quite a bit on a Cat. 27, with an inboard. It has an even taller transom. I can't imagine having to reach down to deal with an outboard on that boat. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >It has an even taller transom. I can't imagine having to reach down to deal >with an outboard on that boat. One place I used it was while transiting the race eastbound outside Fishers Island. The race is a well known "feature" of the area. I was under sail, but ran the motor at partial throttle just to keep my speed up for steerage purposes as we rose and fell. It's not a place to fool around. Wave height was, umm, clearly taller than the cabintop with a fairly short period. Worked great, and no problem with the prop coming out. The entire trip was during one of those Northeast fronts that Wayne mentioned. I got a lot of practice sailing in <100 foot visibility. I sailed under the Jamestown bridge without ever seeing it. Fortunately, most of the time was weekdays, so we didn't have nearly as many small fishing boats zooming around with no lights or radio. It was mostly commercial vessels and cruisers who all announced positions and headings on a regular basis and blew appropriate signals. No surprises. I did pass ELF (RACING YACHT, CIRCA 1888) in very dense fog just outside the Mystic River. That was a treat. I was unfortunately too busy concentrating on the buisness at hand to take a photo of her. My outboard is on a Garelick mount that raises and lowers it. Pretty much the entire leg is submerged. It's the XL 25" leg, so that puts the prop pretty deep. When raised, the motor is still deep enough to run in very calm conditions. I have to also tilt the motor up before the prop clears the water. I have no trouble reaching the throttle. The Yamaha is designed specifically for sailboats and has a very long tiller with throttle, shift, and kill switch where you need them. The shift lever is also quite long, itself. >>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > shift, and kill switch where you need them. The shift lever is also > quite long, itself. Do you have a problem with following seas potentially drowning the OB? They can be a problem with inboards. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >Do you have a problem with following seas potentially drowning the OB? They >can be a problem with inboards. Nope. It sometimes looks like I'm going to have a problem with that, but it never seems to happen. I don't discount the idea that it could happen, so I've tried to make everything as sealed as possible including the cover. It would have to stay underwater for quite a while for significant water seepage. There is one very small drain hole (1/8th inch? on the lowest point of each side. I left those open. Went for a great day sail yesterday. Weather was right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Went out, around Falkner Island, and back. About 36 miles total. It's really about a 20 mile round trip, but we were out to enjoy the day, not run a beeline anywhere. Ran the motor a little at about 1/4 throttle to get in and out of the harbor, for a grand total of maybe about 4 ounces of gasoline consumed for the day. I wonder how much fuel it would have taken a 49 foot Mainship to make that trip? LOL > Went for a great day sail yesterday ... About 36 miles total ... Ran the > motor a little ... to get in and out of the harbor, for a grand total of > maybe about 4 ounces of gasoline ... I wonder how much fuel it would have > taken a 49 foot Mainship to make that trip? ... I sometimes notice that even humans with "inferior" equipment (diesel engines, power-driven vessels, and the like) somehow manage to enjoy being afloat despite their unenlightened choices. And then there are those who bother to leave harbor only to return to the exact same location a few hours later. Really! SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare >> Went for a great day sail yesterday ... About 36 miles total ... Ran the >> motor a little ... to get in and out of the harbor, for a grand total of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Really! I have said many times, that Wayne should enjoy his life however he thinks is best. I personally just don't understand the attraction of his choices! Isn't the underlying purpose of this usenet discussion group to talk about our likes, dislikes and opinions on things? Wayne and I obviously have different ideas about many things. We also agree on many - just not AS many. LOL >>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > wonder how much fuel it would have taken a 49 foot Mainship to make > that trip? LOL Heh... sounds like a great day. 4 oz... that's about a snifter's worth. I guess I'm fairly ignorant about OBs. I know they have to breathe, so I was thinking the problem would be with the air intake? With inboards, the main problem (in an unprotected engine) would be water getting through the exhaust and killing the engine. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >problem (in an unprotected engine) would be water getting through the >exhaust and killing the engine. I probably didn't describe what I did fully enough. There is still ample air for the engine. I just made it less likely that a brief submersion would kill the engine. >>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > ample air for the engine. I just made it less likely that a brief > submersion would kill the engine. Ah... I guess given the relatively light boat, the stern wouldn't be under that long, even if there was a pronounced following sea. And, of course, if there's wind, you'd likely be sailing not motoring. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>> Went for a great day sail yesterday. Weather was right out of a Norman >>>> Rockwell painting. Went out, around Falkner Island, and back. About 36 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >that long, even if there was a pronounced following sea. And, of course, if >there's wind, you'd likely be sailing not motoring. I'm also usually sailing when there is no wind. At least, you'd think there was no wind, based on all the other sailboats motoring past me! Speaking of Bobsprit... >>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >month and I can't think of any with outboards. People just don't do >it and there are good reasons. 200 GALLONS for "reserve"! I could do a circumnavigation with less than that. >>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I could do a circumnavigation with less than that. Don't be too sure of that. A friend motored for nearly a week coming back from India. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Hey, I hate to respond to my own posts but..... Probably the best reason for not having an outboard on a cruising boat is that outboards are soooooo easy to steal. Off to town in the dinghy and when you get back.... no auxiliary power... :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) A long shaft sailboat motor is not a very attractive target as the market for them is miniscule. Much easier to steal, and then get rid of, the same size motors with short shafts off of RIBS, as well as the RIBs they are mounted upon. Dealers don't even like to stock these motors because they are in such low demand. You usually have to special order them. Mine would also be "a little awkward" to remove onto a another boat unless the other boat was a barge with a crane. I would't consider it much of a target at all. >>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >unless the other boat was a barge with a crane. I would't consider it >much of a target at all. You are talking about all the trouble you went through to get the motor. The guys that want it just want an outboard. and how much trouble is it for a couple of guys in a, say 20 ft. fishing boat? Maybe even three or four guys? The guy that was murdered down near Langkawi, Malaysia, they came aboard his boat to get the dinghy. An outboard on an empty boat is easy money. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >trouble is it for a couple of guys in a, say 20 ft. fishing boat? >Maybe even three or four guys? It would not be a very useful motor for them. It has a very long leg. It is not an attractive target for theft because it has very limited applications. A couple of guys in a 20 foot fishing boat would likely end up with a hernia each, or in the water trying to muscle this thing off my boat. I'm not worried. Not in the least. It's more likely that thieves will steal the nice car I left parked at the Marina while I am out sailing. >>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >It is not an attractive target for theft because it has very limited >applications. You don't think that the local lads are expert outboard boys do you. All they know is that (1) it is a foreign boat, (2) it has a motor right there in the open (3) we might be able to sell it and (4) I can borrow my daddy's boat (as long as we put a liter of diesel in it). >A couple of guys in a 20 foot fishing boat would likely end up with a >hernia each, or in the water trying to muscle this thing off my boat. >I'm not worried. Not in the least. It's more likely that thieves will >steal the nice car I left parked at the Marina while I am out sailing. Good Lord! How big is that thing? I thought you were talking about an "auxiliary motor" and since I've got 40 HP I reckoned that a more dedicated sailor wouldn't have more then 25 and a couple of the local lads can handle that. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Your girlish hysterics, aside, as I said, it's far more likely that my car will be stolen while I'm out sailing. Iguess I don't live in fear as you seem to do. >>>>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > >Iguess I don't live in fear as you seem to do. Oh, I thought we were talking about a "cruising boat". Remember I said something about an outboard not being ideal for a cruising boat? And here you are talking about your "car in the parking lot". My mistake. I was talking about sailing off to foreign shores and you were talking about an afternoon's sail. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I sail a lot more than you do, Brucie. >>>>>>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > >I sail a lot more than you do, Brucie. You may, or you may not, however that doesn't change the fact that I specifically a "cruising yacht", not a day sailor. And you replied to the post about a cruising yacht by talking about your car in the parking lot. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >the post about a cruising yacht by talking about your car in the >parking lot. My car has to be somewhere at all times. At home, at work or at the airport while I'm gone for a month or two. Owning a car does not mean you aren't a cruiser, Bruce. I'll bet Wayne owns a car or two. He doesn't take them on board when he crusies, so Iguess he parks it somewhere, like I do. Sheesh. On the other side of that coin, I don't consider most liveaboards who stay in one place to be cruisers. Your BOAT is in a parking lot full time. Most liveaboards rarely sail, because daily living has taken over all the functions of the boat. Too much crap aboard and no where to stow it. People who live aboard whjile constantly staying on the move are cruisers. Your home may be floating, but you swallowed the anchor a long time ago. >On the other side of that coin, I don't consider most liveaboards who >stay in one place to be cruisers. Your BOAT is in a parking lot full >time. Most liveaboards rarely sail, because daily living has taken >over all the functions of the boat. Too much crap aboard and no where >to stow it. Unfortunately we've seen a lot of that. Well, maybe not unfortunately if that's what someone wants. There's a couple boats at the marina whose owners said they came years ago, one 7 years the other 13, and liked it so much they stayed. One boat goes out regularly and the other is welded to the dock. Some of the liveaboards have so much junk aboard you have to crawl over it, and even have built sheds on shore. Our rule has always been if it doesn't have a place to be put away, we don't need it. Nothing is to be left on the settees, counter tops, cabin sole, etc. Another part of the rule is with the exception of tools and spare parts, if it hasn't been used in 6 months it goes. We do have a few nick-nacks, but Cathy can stow them while I crank up and get the hose and power cord disconnected, with plenty of time to come on deck and slip the docklines. IOW, it takes about 5 minutes after deciding to go out to be underway. We're in "liveaboard mode" at the moment. We pulled into the marina last Jan. to "hunker down" during the cold, with intentions to set sail in March. There's been some problems with my 96 year old father-in-law and we're staying close. We have been able to take a few week-plus "cruises". Rick <snip> > My mistake. I was talking about sailing off to foreign shores and you > were talking about an afternoon's sail. The trouble with you, Bruce, is ALL you do is TALK about it. . . Over thirty years at the Bangkok dock? Pathetic, man, pathetic! Wilbur Hubbard Engine models, features, full specifications can be found here: http://tohatsuoutboards.com/Tohatsu-9-8-hp-outboard.html This model is offered in 3 shaft lengths, to determine shaft length required visit: http://tohatsuoutboards.com/Tohatsu-FAQ-Shaft-Length.html or http://www.onlineoutboards.com/Help.html?Question=Shaft-Length >>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) He could have choosen a better route, or simply waited. Lots of boats have circumnavigated without a motor at all. Most of Wayne's arguments center around his personal need to isolate himself from his surroundings. Microwaves, Widescreen TV's, Hot and cold pressure water, refrigeration are all OPTIONS. People that climb Mt. Everest don't have them. People who hike the Appalachian Trail don't have them. Lewis and Clark didn't have them, and neither did Christofer Columbus or the Vikings before him. On land, people crossing the country on foot or on bicycles see and experience a lot more than those zooming across in Winnebagos, stopping at night in Walmart parking lots or KOA "campgrounds". I'm more of a bicycle kind of traveler. I like to be directly in my surroundings, not perched up high in an enclosure surrounded by glass. Wayne is certainly welcome to enjoy his boat any way he chooses, but tio my mind, it doesn't matter how far he travels, because what he does doesn't sound like cruising to me at all. Just not my idea of it. >>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >He could have choosen a better route, or simply waited. There really isn't much choice of routes between Thailand and India :-) >Lots of boats have circumnavigated without a motor at all. Most of >Wayne's arguments center around his personal need to isolate himself [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have them. Lewis and Clark didn't have them, and neither did >Christofer Columbus or the Vikings before him. Of course. Just as many people circumnavigated without sheet winches. In fact I owned a boat that was rigged with no winches at all, just exactly as our grandpa had. It also had NO electricity and had cotton canvas sails. But I'll bet that your boat uses winches and has synthetic sails and synthetic lines, and a GPS, and a radio. This idea that because one is sailing around in a radically differently designed craft, made from a material that worms won't eat, painted with some exotic coating that keeps the barnacles off, using sails that can be put away wet and lines that don't stretch and winches to allow one man to handle sails without hauling forty miles of rope, and has a radio so he can summon help when he runs on a sandbar, and may even has "tow insurance" to pay for a guy to haul him off the sand bar, is doing the same thing his grandfather was is ludicrous. It is a whole new ball game and sailing around in a Tupperware boat and imagining they are living like John Paul Jones is just illusionary. How can you make of use of certain products of technology and ignore the rest and think that somehow you are doing what Grandpappy did? >On land, people crossing the country on foot or on bicycles see and >experience a lot more than those zooming across in Winnebagos, >stopping at night in Walmart parking lots or KOA "campgrounds". > >I'm more of a bicycle kind of traveler. I like to be directly in my >surroundings, not perched up high in an enclosure surrounded by glass. Joshua Slocum's book is still available and a replica of the Spray can be built, just as Slocum sailed her, but how many do you see? For all the talk about authentic, just like out ancestors did it, sailing, I don't see many. >Wayne is certainly welcome to enjoy his boat any way he chooses, but >tio my mind, it doesn't matter how far he travels, because what he >does doesn't sound like cruising to me at all. Just not my idea of it. But until you throw away your GPS, change back to canvas sails and hemp ropes. Deep six your winches, pull the aluminum mast and stainless rigging replace with a proper gaff rigged mast and rope rigging and haul the fiberglass hull ashore to be replaced by a real cedar on white oak hull, with a laid deck (that leaks) and a manual bilge pump, all you are doing is saying that the technology that you use is proper while the technology that someone else uses is not. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >But until you throw away your GPS, change back to canvas sails and >hemp ropes. Deep six your winches, pull the aluminum mast and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >bilge pump, all you are doing is saying that the technology that you >use is proper while the technology that someone else uses is not. I sort of took it he was happy with his OB, and that other people don't like them. In fact Salty carries radar, so I don't think he disdains technology. More about lifestyle choices. Too many variations to count, but I don't fly. Used to once in a while to get back to my ship in time after a 72. But since I don't have to fly, why should I? Ain't in a hurry. The journey's always been part of the destination to me. Didn't feel right whenever I flew. I'm here, then there, with nothing in between. Anyway, to the real point, the PDQ gives up a lot of room for twin diesels, and takes on weight. Then there's cost. There are plenty cruising with OB's and doing just fine. I don't have a handle on fuel costs. There are different needs for electrical power, and different solutions. Fitting a watercooled genset in one of the hulls, for example, if you just have to have one. Could work. The genset and tankage wouldn't more than equal the space of the diesel propulsion in that hull. I've noticed in many journals cruisers are often in a hurry, even when there's no real demand for it Wind pushing you three knots, so you fire up the engine. Just can't relax for some reason. Even the fellow in the link I posted. He does love to sail, but sometimes he cranks up the outboards to make an anchorage before nightfall when island hopping. Safety issue, I suppose. Whatever one's preference, I don't care. A song lyric comes to mind. "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." Bet that works every damn time. --Vic How true is this statement!! The journey's always been part of the destination > to me. Didn't feel right whenever I flew. I'm here, then there, with > nothing in between. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) You are either joking or demented, Bruce. >>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > You are either joking or demented, Bruce. They are mutually exclusive?? Sorry Bruce, I couldn't help it! Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > >You are either joking or demented, Bruce. Nope. Only pointing out that people who enthuse about sailing implying that is the way they used to do it are either joking or illusionary :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>>>>>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>>>>>>>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >Bruce >(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) And who did that? It sure wasn't me. > Most of >Wayne's arguments center around his personal need to isolate himself >from his surroundings. That is an assumption that does not wash. One of our favorite cruising activities is to go out in the dinghy, explore the boondocks, go into town, meet the locals, try their food, see the sights, etc. For most people, including us, that's what cruising is all about. *All* of my arguments center around what I consider to be necessary for reasonable comfort and safety on an extended cruise - one where supplies are not located on every corner, and a high degree of reliability and self sufficiency are very desirable. Of course everyone has different ideas about what that means, and there are always budget constraints for everyone - that's why I don't have a fully crewed mega yacht capable of crossing oceans in style. :-) This all started of course when I expressed the opinion that ouboard propulsion is not a very good option for long range cruising. No offense intended toward anyone, I just happen to think it's true for a number of good reasons and some personal experiences. Some interesting discussion points were brought out in any case. It might be interesting to start another thread on what people consider to be essential or highly desirable on cruising boats, perhaps broken out by three or more size ranges: Under 30 feet; 30 to 40; 40 and up, for example. I'd suggest that we should consider what it would take for your wife to agree to a 3 month cruise on the boat. :-) For you guys who aren't married, you'll just have to use your imagination. Some possible discussion items: - Type of dinghy, dinghy power, dinghy storage. - Water tankage and/or water maker?. - Pressure water?, hot water?, shower?, number and type of heads. - Number and type of anchors, length/type of rode, windlass?, etc - Galley equipment, stove type, refrigeration type, microwave?, blender?, toaster?, freezer? - Safety equipment, liferaft?, EPIRB?, SSB radio?, Sat Phone? - Aux power, none?, outboard?, inboard gas?, inboard diesel?, tankage/range?, fuel filtration and polishing?, oil change system? - Electrical system, none?, basic 12 volt?, house bank/size?, recharging capability?, inverter/type/size/switching?, generator type/size/switching? - Self steering?, autopilot?, wind vane? - Electronics, GPS plotter/features, radar/features, depth sounder, AIS?, DSC VHF?, handhelds?, entertainment systems?, etc. and so on.... >> Most of >>Wayne's arguments center around his personal need to isolate himself [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >for example. I'd suggest that we should consider what it would take >for your wife to agree to a 3 month cruise on the boat. :-) My wife has already set the ground rules for that day, which will come. She wants an Island Packet 370. She prefers it to the bigger models. Until we are BOTH ready to actually stop working, we have no need of that boat, and she loves our present boat for what we do now. >For you >guys who aren't married, you'll just have to use your imagination. > >Some possible discussion items: > >- Type of dinghy, dinghy power, dinghy storage. Portabote, oars, sails and 3.5 outboard. Folds up and gets lashed to the lifelines lke a surfboard. When we get a bigger boat, I'll probably get the next size up Portaboat from what we have now. I have had enough RIBs to know I never want another one. >- Water tankage and/or water maker?. Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all your own food? >- Pressure water?, hot water?, shower?, number and type of heads. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >and so on.... Actually, I look forward to reading whatever this generates. Thanks for keeping the conversation going, Wayne. >Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >your own food? No, but there are many places in the world where good potable water is impossible to obtain at any price. Most marinas in the Bahamas, a very real cruising destination for us North American types, are already charging 50 cents a gallon for dock water, and the price keeps going up. For people making long passages, water capacity is always an issue, and it's really nice to get one or two good showers a day without worrying about draining the tank. You'd probably be surprised at the number of long range cruisers who are already equipped with water makers for exactly these reasons. >>Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >>your own food? > >No, but there are many places in the world where good potable water is >impossible to obtain at any price. You cruise in the Sahara desert? LOL >Most marinas in the Bahamas, a >very real cruising destination for us North American types, are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You'd probably be surprised at the number of long range cruisers who >are already equipped with water makers for exactly these reasons. There are other ways to supplement fresh water without adding the expense and problems of a high maintenence watermaker. I'm not surprised by the number of cruisers who think they can't live without a watermaker and hot showers. >>>Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >>>your own food? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You cruise in the Sahara desert? LOL The key words are *good potable*. Have you ever been to Mexico or Central America ? Have you ever had Montezuma's Revenge (dysentery) ? Remember, we are by definition, talking about being away from supplies for two to four weeks, maybe more. We find that our usage is between 5 and 10 gallons per day, per person using normal amounts. Two people over 30 days would use 300 to 600 gallons at that rate, way more than most boats can carry. >>Most marinas in the Bahamas, a >>very real cruising destination for us North American types, are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >surprised by the number of cruisers who think they can't live without >a watermaker and hot showers. You and your wife can cruise without showers if you want but not with us. :-) >>>>Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >>>>your own food? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Have you ever been to Mexico or Central America ? Yes. Many times. >Have you ever had >Montezuma's Revenge (dysentery) ? Not once. Easy to avoid with just a little care. >Remember, we are by definition, >talking about being away from supplies for two to four weeks, maybe >more. We find that our usage is between 5 and 10 gallons per day, per >person using normal amounts. Two people over 30 days would use 300 >to 600 gallons at that rate, way more than most boats can carry. You can do with far less, and if you know how to collect water, you are not strictly limited by tankage. I have already stated that my boat's range is more limited by water and food capacity than fuel capacity. Even at that, a sister ship to my boat has crossed the Atlantic to Ireland and back. I don't think your boat has that kind of range. >You and your wife can cruise without showers if you want but not with >us. > > :-) We have no problems with personal maintenance. It doesn't require 10 gallons of fresh water a day, either. > You and your wife can cruise without showers if you want but not with > us. > > :-) How much water does it take to shower you, Wayne? We are doing ot on 1.5 Gallons for the both of us and having fun doing it (!). >> You and your wife can cruise without showers if you want but not with >> us. >> >> :-) > >How much water does it take to shower you, Wayne? Don't know but more than it used to. >We are doing ot on 1.5 Gallons for the both of us >and having fun doing it (!). Yes, I can remember the old sun shower on a halyard days. I thought they held more like 2 gallons though. We used to cheat and heat ours up with water from the tea kettle, faster that way. Those days are over, now it's a 20 gallon electric heater. You need that with a washer/dryer on board and 2 heads. :-) >>>Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >>>your own food? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >surprised by the number of cruisers who think they can't live without >a watermaker and hot showers. For fully half the year in the monsoon areas there is little or no rain. You replenish water supplies by either going ashore and toting it back to the boat or a watermaker :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>Watermaker? Your list is already getting funny. Do you also grow all >>>>your own food? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >rain. You replenish water supplies by either going ashore and toting >it back to the boat or a watermaker :-) A cruiser with half a brain would take the hint and go elsewhere. I realize you don't have that option and must do without water for 6 months at a time. Surely you don't walk down the dock and go ASHORE to get water! What watermaker do you have on board? How often does it require maintenance? How much water does it provide daily? What powers it? Oh... you don't need rain to collect water. Probably not enough to take long showers, but enough to support life. >What watermaker do you have on board? How often does it >require maintenance? How much water does it provide daily? What powers >it? I know you didn't ask me the question, but I think it's one that needs answering. I've had a PUR 40E 1.5 GPH in the past and now have a PUR 80E 3.4 GPH. The 40E ran about 4 to 5 hours every day for most of 2-1/2 years. The current 80E has just been run for several week-long periods. It takes about 1-1/2 hours to 2-1/2 hours of daily running, the latter on "wsshing and shower days". Note that half to one gallon is used to flush after running. There's a "silty water" setup, not the mega-buck "kit", which is just an extra filter housing. We've made water in clean and dirty, and very dirty water. Filter elements are not a big expense, they are simply washed out when necessary and will last over a year. Maintenance: Very little. Put some silicone grease on the pump shaft when it starts squeaking, clean the pre-filters as above when needed - month or more in clean water, weekly in silty water. Make half to one gallon in a jug, as above, and run it though to flush when shutting down. Run it every day, or at least every three days max, otherwise pickle it. Pickling is easy, dump 2 caps of biocide into 2 qts of water and run it through, then forget about it until you use it again. To start up after pickling, run it for 20 minutes, test, and fill the tanks. We use one tank one day, the other the next. The day before tank is topped off. This way if something happens to the watermaker, we've still got one full tank of good water. Power is 12V. Call it 16 Amp Hours per daily run, or about 2.4 Amp Hours per gallon of water, put back by the solar. The only downside to a watermaker is they're very overpriced. Rick >>What watermaker do you have on board? How often does it >>require maintenance? How much water does it provide daily? What powers [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Rick Thanks, Rick. That sounds less onerous than what I usually hear about watermakers and the difficulty of maintaining them. On a larger boat with room for ample solar panels, or even a wind gen, the power draw you describe wouldn't be impossible to live with, either. >Thanks, Rick. That sounds less onerous than what I usually hear about >watermakers and the difficulty of maintaining them. On a larger boat >with room for ample solar panels, or even a wind gen, the power draw >you describe wouldn't be impossible to live with, either. Most folks I've run into have bought larger than needed watermakers, so they wind up not running them enough. They will give problems if not run regularly, at least an hour a day. Those folks wind up running them maybe once a week or even wait a couple weeks until the water tank is dry, and usually don't flush with product water before shutdown. A recipe for disaster. They tend not to pickle them when not going to be used because they haven't run it for a few days then "forget", another recipe for disaster. I've heard the excuse, "It's too much trouble." I don't buy that. The daily routine is a lot less trouble and effort than raising or dousing the mainsail! Come on, flip the switch, make a glass of water and test (taste test is best, TDS meter okay), grab a gallon jug, fill the jug, move the valve to the water tank, when water comes out the tank vent, drop the slternate intake in the jug, move the intake valve, when about a half gallon or so of jug water goes in, flip off the switch. Take a look at the prefilters through the clear case. If ucky, pop them out and put the 2nd set in, wash off the first set and let dry in the sun. Heck, the daily routine takes less effort and time than putting on the mainsail cover, but everyone seems to know that if you don't put on the cover, your main will soon be UV rotted! Rick >I've heard the excuse, "It's too much trouble." I don't buy that. The >daily routine is a lot less trouble and effort than raising or dousing >the mainsail! Come on, flip the switch, make a glass of water and test >(taste test is best, TDS meter okay), grab a gallon jug, fill the jug, If you are using it for an hour a day is it still necessary to do the daily water test and discard the first gallon? Does it have a UV sterilizer to kill viruses, etc. ? >If you are using it for an hour a day is it still necessary to do the >daily water test and discard the first gallon? Does it have a UV >sterilizer to kill viruses, etc. ? Maybe I wasn't clear on that "first gallon". It's not discarded, it's used to "flush" the saltwater out of the system. Worth it to keep the membrane happy! The first 5 minutes is discarded, as per instructions. This can (notice CAN) contain byproducts of bacterial decomposition small enough to make it through, such as Hydrogen Sulfide, the "rotten egg" smell stuff. It won't really hurt you, but yuck. That's a good "proof" of the value of the flush. Don't flush, just turn off, then the next day sniff the first water coming out. Yes, the water should be tested after that 5-minute discard, mainly because a cracked membrane will let stuff though. I occasionally use a TDS meter, but usually just put the hose in a cup for a bit and have a drink. The "taste test" is recommended over TDS meter by the manufacturer. I guess if one is a bit on the overcautious side one could use the meter first. No UV steriizer. I feel that's a waste of power. All viruses, bacteria, cysts, etc. are supposed to be unable to pass through the membrane. I've been flamed before about this, but the fact remains that we've drunk literally thousands of gallons of RO water with no ill effects. Now I do chlorinate the water in the tanks occasionally. BTW, chlorine and oil will quickly DESTROY the membrane. That's why I use that jug for collecting the flush water. Rick >> Most of >>Wayne's arguments center around his personal need to isolate himself [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >and so on.... I suggest a criteria for the type of cruising. Maybe, day sailing up the coast where one stops every evening and spares and supplies are available. Travel to foreign or remote areas where you are pretty much on your own for several weeks at a time. I find storage as being the most important factor in determining boat size. If "provisions" consists of a loaf of bread and a bottle of jelly for tomorrow's breakfast and peanut butter and saltine crackers for lunch because we will stop at "hole in the wall" where they have that darling little restaurant for supper, it is one thing. If you aren't going to see land for three weeks it is quite another. Boat size, depending on use but for a couple my opinion is 35 ft. minimum and 40 ft. makes a more pleasant living space. Fridge - Damned nice if you are cruising in tropical areas. On the other hand I would be reluctant to depend on it for long trips as a failure could be life threatening. Water maker - Allows you to sail a lighter boat but failure could be life threatening. Probably a good idea for long distance but should be combined with a sensible fresh water management system. In any event you want fairly large water tanks to allow a water management system to function. Water system - for long distance cruising a manual pump system. If you can build a automatic pressure system for marina use and a manual pump for off shore you have the best of two worlds. Stove - LPG. You can get it anywhere, a couple of 9 Kg. tanks lasts for months. It is easy to light and it cooks good. Microwave, etc. For marina use only. Autopilot/wind vane steering - YES! A must have item. the vane steering works only under sail and the Autopilot works both under power and sail. I see more and more people using autopilots but I'd prefer both as many autopilots use too much power for reliable use in long sailing passages. Battery bank - House and start batteries that are separate. Size depends on use. Auxiliary power - Diesel inboard! Shaft drive with no sail drive or Vee or Zee drives. I suggest a Baja Filter. I don't have one but I normally refuel from jerry cans and let them settle before transferring to the tanks. Fuel Polishing - I consider a system to "polish" the fuel probably unreliable however a system to cycle the fuel through a water catcher is not a bad idea. I have gotten water from both shore tanks and fuel barges. Fuel tankage - A minimum of several days steaming. If you undertake a circumnavigation it is likely you will, sooner or later, encounter extended periods with either adverse wind or no wind. Communication - VHF for inshore and a Amateur Band SSB with a modem to be able to use SailMail during cruises. More and more Cell Phone is used to communicate with marina's so a multi band phone with a system for the areas you are visiting is nice. EPIRB is probably a must although in much of Asia it is going to be several days before anyone goes looking for you. Dinghy - Probably the most useful dinghy is an inflatable however if cruising in tropical climates it should be Hypalon as other material fails quickly in tropical sun light. A dinghy cover is also a good idea. With the usual inflatable a 5 HP engine is useful. Finally; lets change the subject name if this thread is going to continue. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >Some possible discussion items: First, let me state that MY WAY is the RIGHT and ONLY WAY... For me. YOUR WAY is the RIGHT and ONLY WAY.... For you. Of course MY WAY and YOUR WAY have to be almost endlessly modified for an almost endless number of reasons: Money, ability, your/my boat setup and capacities, etc., etc., etc. For a bit over 2 years we are a live-aboard, full timer cruiser couple. The boat is a Pearson Rhodes 41. Not a real roomy 41, she's long and lean and FAST. I've lived-aboard and/or extended cruised off and on for a total of about 8 years. Having said all that.... >- Type of dinghy, dinghy power, dinghy storage. I much prefer a hard dinghy. We have a Sandpiper 8. Power is usually a small trolling motor or oars. I just got a 2 HP outboard and will use it for those longer and hurrier trips. Most of the time it's rowed, except for those places we have to anchor more than about a tenth of a mile out. When not used it's on davits. I tried a Porta-Boat and found it much more trouble than it was worth. I wound up giving it away. I've had inflatables and my only grip is they really don't row too well and can be pretty wet in a chop. We're thinking of getting a WaterTender 9.4. I tried one out and it has the stability and room of an inflatable, but rows well. >- Water tankage and/or water maker? 70 gallons in 2 tanks. That's what the boat came with and there's really no way to add more. PUR 80E 3.4 GPH watermaker. I wouldn't even consider not having one. Our cruising is extended stays in out of the way places. I would not have one if we took occasional weeks or months cruises. >- Pressure water?, hot water?, shower?, number and type of heads. Yes for pressure water, hot water and shower-for-two. We have a manual pump in the galley but it doesn't work. One can conserve with pressure water. If you can't bring yourself to do it, buy a "water saver" for each faucet. It screws on in place of the aerator and has a little rod. You leave the faucet on and when you move the rod water comes out. We also have a pressure raw water system plumbed to separate faucets. One head with a Jabsco toilet going to a Lectra/San. A lot of folks, including the Princess of Poop, Peggie Hall, bad mouths the Jabscos, but it's been used ever day for 2 years and another like it was used every day for 3 years. Never had a problem nor had to rebuild. >- Number and type of anchors, length/type of rode, windlass?, etc 4 anchors: 45 lb Bruce, 45 lb CQR, 35 lb (I think) Danforth and same size aluminum Danforth (I think it's 11 lb). The Bruce is the main one. I swear that thing has a "bottom magnet". We use a dedicated GPS as an anchor alarm and the Bruce has never dragged. Note too that the aluminum Danforth sets faster and holds better than the "iron" one. I don't know why and I suppose it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. Main anchor rode is 130 ft of chain plus 250 ft. 3/4" line. Secondary is 40 ft. chain plus 250 ft of 3/4" line. Simpson Laurence 2-speed manual windless. The gypsy will take any size chain. In fact the main rode is 30 ft. of 5/16 chain coupled to 100 ft of 3/8 chain. I think that's the sizes. >- Galley equipment, stove type, refrigeration type, microwave?, >blender?, toaster?, freezer? 4 burner w/ oven gimbled propane stove, Norcold 110/12 Volt icebox conversion in re-insulated built in icebox. I would NOT recommend the Norcold. It doesn't come close to the Adler/Barber I had before. 1,000 Watt compact mirowave, toaster, 110V Haier 1.3 cu. ft. freezer with decicated inverter. >- Safety equipment, liferaft?, EPIRB?, SSB radio?, Sat Phone? Spot, Ham/SSB radio with modem. >- Aux power, none?, outboard?, inboard gas?, inboard diesel?, >tankage/range?, fuel filtration and polishing?, oil change system? Perkins 4-107 inboard diesel. 40 gallon tank, again that's what the boat came with and no place to add tankage. We usually carry 20 gallons in jerry cans on deck (I HATE that!). Range is 300 nautical miles at 6.3 kts to 480 nautical miles at 5 kts, including the jerry cans. Standard Racor and inline filters. No polishing system. Oil change is locking ball valve on oil pan with hose to drop in gallon jug. To address the ongoing war about diesel inboard vs. outboard: I think either are fine. An outboard will burn more fuel, but is a lot cheaper to buy and/or replace. It would take a lot of running to make up the difference. Some, maybe most, boats would have the problem of the prop coming out of the water in rough conditions. A longer shaft should take care of most of this. An old outboard dealer told me one can just order shaft and foot extensions and put as many together as needed, so a 4 or 5 or 6 or even 10 foot shaft is not unreasonable. I had a Morgan 27 with an Atomic 4 inboard. The clutch developed a problem. I had a 15 HP outboard so fabricated a mount for it. To my surprise the outboard reached hull speed at about half throttle and burned the same amount of fuel per hours as the Atomic 4. I eventually repaired the clutch, but kept the outboard handy in case. I had decided to sell the boat, but before that decision I thought seriously about removing the Atomic 4 and going with the outboard. I would consider a 4-cycle outboard if the Perkins died, but we have too much overhang, plus the dinghy/davits would have to go. Here goes another discussion maybe... If the Perkins dies, I plan on replacing it with a DC electric motor and diesel generator. The motor would probably mostly be run from the house bank for short periods and calmer conditions. >- Electrical system, none?, basic 12 volt?, house bank/size?, >recharging capability?, inverter/type/size/switching?, generator >type/size/switching? House bank: 4 golf cart batteris plus 1 deep cycle marine (this was my trolling motor battery I replaced with a smaller one). 500 Amp Hour total. I'd like to add 2 more golf cart batteries, but the problem is room. Engine bank is 2 group 24 marine starting in parallel, with a 10 W solar trickle panel. Recharging: 600 Watts of solar panels with a Blue Sky MPPT controller; Air Marine 450 Watt wind generator; 100 Amp Baldor alternator on engine; Freedom 10 50 Amp charger/ 1,000 Watt inverter. Inverters: Vector 2,500 Watt, 750 Watt, 450 Watt. The 450 is used for the flat screen TV and DVD recorder. The 750 is dedicated to the freezer. The 2,500 is used for the microwave and coffee pot. Note that the coffee pot takes 70 Amps from the battery, but only takes 5 minutes for a total of 6 Amp Hours. Generator: 3.5 KW gasoline on cabin top. Yeah, I know. I hate the thing and always refused to have one. But I bought it last summer so we could run the marine A/C for my wife. And me too, I have to admit. It was HOT and this summer seems to be the same. At least it's pretty quiet. Halfway thinking about getting a Next Gen diesel... >- Self steering?, autopilot?, wind vane? Raymarine S1 Wheel Pilot with an old Simrad wheel pilot for a spare. Wouldn't be without one! I do like the idea of a wind vane, but I'd prefer to have my dinghy on davits. >- Electronics, GPS plotter/features, radar/features, depth sounder, >AIS?, DSC VHF?, handhelds?, entertainment systems?, etc. 2 Garmin GPS color plotter/sounders, 1 old B&W Garmin chartplotter for anchor drag alarm, wired to LOUD piezo buzzer, Garmin handheld GPS, Garmin StreetPilot GPS (which works with nautical charts), Navetec GPS sleeve for one of the Compaq IPaq pocket computers, Delorme serial output GPS. 4 laptop computers, 3 Compaq/HP pocket computers, all with Nav software. DSC VHF down below, VHF at steering station, handheld VHF. SPOT Satellite Messenger. 19" flat HD TV, antenna on mizzen, DVD recorder with digital conveter, auto type AM/FM radio with 5 CD changer. Would like to have AIS, at least receive only, but too durn expen$ive!! >and so on.... OGM LED Tricolor/Anchor light and mostly LED interior lights. No one should criticize another for his/her choices. We're all different. I've cruised aboard different sized and equipped sailboats over the last 47 years, and a few powerboats. My first was a 16 ft Petral with a gasoline camp stove and D-cell running, anchor and interior lights. The engine was an old 5 HP outboard. I was 16 at the time and it was a most pleasurable few months. Could I do it now at age 63? Certainly! Would I? No, I don't think so. Rick >>Some possible discussion items: > [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > >Rick Thanks for a great contribution to this thread! My earliest cruising was in small open boats that I dragged ashore at night. There were occasions where I turned the boat on it's side as a windbreak, or pulled the mast and turned it over for a shelter. It was great. I'm curious about the S1. Raymarine says it is rated to 16,500 lbs but I would guess the Rhodes 41 loaded probably exceeds that by a bit. So how much time/miles do you have on it and how is the performance in the slop? Thanks G >> - Self steering?, autopilot?, wind vane? > > Raymarine S1 Wheel Pilot with an old Simrad wheel pilot for a spare. > Wouldn't be without one! I do like the idea of a wind vane, but I'd > prefer to have my dinghy on davits. > I'm curious about the S1. Raymarine says it is rated to 16,500 lbs but >I would guess the Rhodes 41 loaded [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > G By quite a bit, displacement is 24,000 lbs. I really don't understand that displacement rating. I always go with if a human can steer it, an autopilot can. I had a 4000+ on a Coranado 35 and it steered over 12,000 nautical miles with no problems, including 15 ft folowing seas. A friend put one on his 40,000 lb trawler and it worked fine. Only a couple thousand miles on the Rhodes, but it's done fine on all points of sail and under power. Twice the S1 turned off with a "locked" error. Both times under power while pushing through mud. Under those conditions it's all I can do to budge the wheel with both hands. Rick >For a bit over 2 years we are a live-aboard, full timer cruiser >couple. The boat is a Pearson Rhodes 41. Not a real roomy 41, she's >long and lean and FAST. Classic good old boat ! Looks like you've got it nicely equipped also. I just realized today that you are also a member of the "Liveaboard List". I've been on there a long time but mostly lurk. We have met some of the other denizens at various times however including the famous "Norm and Jan" duo from Bandersnatch. >Classic good old boat ! Looks like you've got it nicely equipped >also. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >some of the other denizens at various times however including the >famous "Norm and Jan" duo from Bandersnatch. Thanks Wayne. Yes, I've been on the Liveaboard List a long time. I used to post quite a lot but not too much now. Norm and I have gone round and round in the past, but we mostly agree :-) I was thinking you were familiar. Rick > No one should criticize another for his/her choices. We're all > different. I've cruised aboard different sized and equipped sailboats [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rick That was a breath of fresh air. Thanks Rick. Post more - please! Richard Much snipped >I would consider a 4-cycle outboard if the Perkins died, but we have >too much overhang, plus the dinghy/davits would have to go. Here goes >another discussion maybe... If the Perkins dies, I plan on replacing >it with a DC electric motor and diesel generator. The motor would >probably mostly be run from the house bank for short periods and >calmer conditions. Your preliminary comments are correct :-) I'm interested in your reasoning for the electric drive as it seems to present no advantages to have a diesel fueled generator which charge a set of batteries to provide power to an electric motor to turn a propeller. Given that any mechanical or electrical device will have some losses it would seem that there will be less efficiency then a system that connects the diesel engine directly to the propeller rather then going all round Robin Hood's barn, as it were. >Rick Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >Much snipped >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >connects the diesel engine directly to the propeller rather then going >all round Robin Hood's barn, as it were. Diesel/Electric has been used on trains for a very long time. There must be some advantages. I guess one would be full power available at low speeds, and another would be the elimination of need for a transmission. >Diesel/Electric has been used on trains for a very long time. There >must be some advantages. I guess one would be full power available at >low speeds, and another would be the elimination of need for a >transmission. Correct on both points, those are the only real advantages, much more applicable to trains than boats. >>Diesel/Electric has been used on trains for a very long time. There >>must be some advantages. I guess one would be full power available at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Correct on both points, those are the only real advantages, much more >applicable to trains than boats. I wouldn't be so quick to make that call, Wayne. Those advantages might be big ones for a displacement hulled boat, especially if you supplement the diesel with PV and wind generation charging a battery bank. Electric propulsion is starting to show up, even on production boats in limited numbers. >I wouldn't be so quick to make that call, Wayne. Those advantages >might be big ones for a displacement hulled boat, especially if you >supplement the diesel with PV and wind generation charging a battery >bank. We need somewhere between 150 and 200 horsepower to run at about hull speed. That's a *lot* of kilowatts, PV or otherwise. I don't believe there have been any successful implementations of diesel-electric on mid-sized full displacement yachts. Nordhavn was supposedly going to offer it as an option on their passage makers but dropped the project because of costs. <http://lists.samurai.com/pipermail/passagemaking-under-power/2008-February/00408 1.html> or http://tinyurl.com/nd39po Incidently that's the same John Marshall that used to be the head of North Sails and also managed a few America's Cup campaigns. He's a trawler owner now, currently cruising Glacier Bay, Alaska. >>I wouldn't be so quick to make that call, Wayne. Those advantages >>might be big ones for a displacement hulled boat, especially if you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >North Sails and also managed a few America's Cup campaigns. He's a >trawler owner now, currently cruising Glacier Bay, Alaska. There is a world of difference between your needs and those of a sailboat, Wayne. I believe you know that, and just forgot for a moment. <G> >There is a world of difference between your needs and those of a >sailboat, Wayne. I believe you know that, and just forgot for a >moment. <G> Depends on the size and weight of the sailboat. A 70,000 pound sailboat needs almost as much power at hull speed. Power requirements for full displacement boats depend mostly on weight but prismatic coefficient does enter into it somewhat. The biggest cruising sailboat I've ever been on was about 120 feet. Don't know the weight but probably several hundred thousand pounds. It had a pair of aux diesels bigger than mine in a full walk in engine room, everything spotless. >>I wouldn't be so quick to make that call, Wayne. Those advantages >>might be big ones for a displacement hulled boat, especially if you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >North Sails and also managed a few America's Cup campaigns. He's a >trawler owner now, currently cruising Glacier Bay, Alaska. Bob Bitchin's new Shannon 52 displaces 44,000 pounds and has 2 - 75 HP diesels. He plans to run on only one of them when doing extended motoring to conserve fuel. He is still considering changing over to twin electrics later. There wasn't anything suitable available yet. Glacier Bay says they will have big enough motors within the next year to do it. Presently, their biggest model is 32 HP. >>Diesel/Electric has been used on trains for a very long time. There >>must be some advantages. I guess one would be full power available at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Correct on both points, those are the only real advantages, much more >applicable to trains than boats. Ahem. Perhaps neither of you are aware of the progress being made in seawater batteries. Seawater is usually not available to power trains, but vessels at sea are a different matter. This link may discuss "state of the art" or there might be more recent news on this exciting front in the battle for free locomotion. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/01/26/boat-runs-on-sea-water/ --Vic >>>Diesel/Electric has been used on trains for a very long time. There >>>must be some advantages. I guess one would be full power available at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >--Vic The marvels of electrolyses. You can do the same thing with a lemon, a galvanized screw and a piece of copper wire. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >The marvels of electrolyses. You can do the same thing with a lemon, a >galvanized screw and a piece of copper wire. Yes, it is easy to make a battery out of a lemon. It's not a very good battery however. That's because it was designed to be a lemon, not a battery, same problem with a sea water battery. It's interesting to see guys working on things like that, and every once in a while something useful comes out of it. >>The marvels of electrolyses. You can do the same thing with a lemon, a >>galvanized screw and a piece of copper wire. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >interesting to see guys working on things like that, and every once in >a while something useful comes out of it. You did notice that his experiments were all with little model boats. when he get something 15 feet long that does 15 miles an hour it will be far more worthy of notice. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>Much snipped >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >low speeds, and another would be the elimination of need for a >transmission. Also for quite a few ships, but I believe that for trains and ships (and some large earth moving equipment) the advantage is the possibility of all wheel drive on wheeled equipment and the ability to use multiple, thus smaller, generators paralleled as required, for more economical fuel use and of course easier maneuvering as the motors are instantly reversible. Trains too had the advantage that it was impossible to stall the propulsion motor when starting. But on a small boat or low power installation - remember the guy is replacing a 40 HP diesel - I just can't see the advantage of the added complexity. Which is why I was asking the question. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >Your preliminary comments are correct :-) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bruce Be glad to explain my reasoning. First, you are correct in that is is less efficient, maybe by as much as 15%. Don't forget though, that the clutch is going to give some losses, more so with a hydralic one. But. In my case at least I think overall it would be better. Not a major thing, but it would give me a bit more of stowage space because the generator would be moved back from where the engine is and the electric motor would take little room and be back where the clutch is now. I've built a couple electric cars, bikes and trikes and a motorcycle so I'm quite familiar with the beast :-) The electric on battery only would give 3.5 to 4 kts for several hours, assuming I don't add any batteries. It would be used mostly for less than an hour at a time, probably more like a few minutes to 15 or 20 minutes. The solar/wind should be able to put this back in a day or two or three in most cases. If not, there's the generator. Assuming the generator is not needed, a plus is no heat to make its way into the cabin. Efficiency is really not a factor. You might as well say it's infinity percent or totally free sine the solar/wind is eventually putting it all back. For longer runs, which do happen occasionally, the electric motor would be run directly off the generator, like a train diesel locomotive or hybrid car. This would give 5 to 6 kts, depending on generator size, for as long as there's fuel. This mode would be where the efficiency loss comes into play, but I feel it would be worth it for the other battery mode. Again, this would be a fairly small part of "normal" operation. So there would be two motor circuits - one for pure battery and one for generator. The pure battery would be simple, just inexpensive "continuous duty solenoids" and maybe a couple big diodes for a "rectactor" controller to series/parellel the batteries for 2 speeds. You don't really need a "throttle" type controller for these lower powers. The generator ciruit would be simpler and cheaper as well. Instead of a complex DC controller, SCR's can be used on the AC output, then rectifiers to convert to pulsating DC for a true variable "throttle". The trick is to match the prop to the motor. It would probably be better to gear down to turn the prop slower. This could be a fairly simple chain or notched belt drive. So... Mode 1, battery only, would be simple to use. No warming up the engine, moving, cooling down and stopping the engine. Just flip a switch and go. Most of the time the energy gets put back "free". Mode 2, generator only, would be pretty much like now except burning a little more fuel. Maybe. Maybe not. There are factors that could make that up. Clutch efficiency on a "straight engine drive" and the higher torque of an electic motor come to mind. Okay, there's got to be some loss overall, but again I think it would be worth it having Mode 1. The above is my opinion based on the calculations. It would work for my cruising style, but maybe not for yours. Rick >>Your preliminary comments are correct :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > >Rick I can see what you are doing but I still don't see an advantage - this is not to say that "I wanna do it that way" is not a valid reason. But it seems to me: I don't know what sort of electric motor you plan on using but the one boat installation I saw used raw water cooled motors. There was a fairly extensive cooling system with at least one over temp warning system per motor. The one or two water cooled generators I have seen exhibited severe corrosion in only a few years of use. will water cooled motors have the same service life and a low speed, small, diesel engine? I wonder about the high power/low power control systems. What is the advantage of this? with the diesel auxiliary I might use idle to back out of a slip or to creep up on the anchor rode but that is generally a very small percent of the engine's operating time. In addition, especially inside a marina, I have frequently seen a need for almost full power in maneuvering, particularly when the current is running 3 or 4 knts through the marina. It seems to me that saving space is the biggest advantage of a diesel-electric drive. You do get rid of the gearbox but do you need a speed change between the motor and the propeller? In short, is there a distinct advantage in the diesel-electric drive? I'm not trying to start an argument here, I know what the advantages are for a diesel-electric drilling rig, for example, and I'm trying to figure out if there is one for a small engined sailing boat. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >I can see what you are doing but I still don't see an advantage - this >is not to say that "I wanna do it that way" is not a valid reason. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cooled motors have the same service life and a low speed, small, >diesel engine? Yes, I guess "I wanna do it that way" is a valid reason. Hadn't thought about it, but that is part of it. The plan is to use a fork lift raise/lower motor. This is the exact same motor as used in electric cars, but with a much heavier case. It will develop 35 HP at 120 VDC and about 8 HP at 24 VDC. No need for water cooling. Oh, a extra plus is the motor, like all DC motors, will work in "reverse" as a generator under sail. Not sure what you mean about the severe corrosion you've seen in water cooled generators. I've seen a bunch of marine generators over 30 years old still running and looking good. >I wonder about the high power/low power control systems. What is the >advantage of this? with the diesel auxiliary I might use idle to back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >full power in maneuvering, particularly when the current is running 3 >or 4 knts through the marina. First, with those kinds of currents you mention it would definitely be a situation to use the high power mode!! :-) Low power mode would not be like idle. It would be closer to the way it seems some manufacturers, particularly Hunter, put small engines in, like a 10 HP diesel in a Hunter 33 a friend had. Or, if you prefer, it would be like a max range power setting. Remember we're talking 3.5 to 4 kts on battery only. A couple more batteries and it could be 4.5 to 5 kts, probably with about the same "range" with the added Amp Hours. Remember, battery only is for short time use. Max range would probably be 4 to 8 miles, but you really wouldn't want to do that because you'd have to use the generator to recharge. Better to go into high power mode. Okay, let's look at how low power, battery only, would be used. As I had mentioned, right now we're at a marina in Slidell, LA due to a care-giver situation. It's about 2 miles to the lake. We could use battery only to get to the lake, sail about, etc., then maybe low power back. In a way it does make sense because when we get back we'll plug in and recharge "free" (fixed rate electricity). If we moved to a nearby marina, our trip to the lake would be about 1/4 mile. Now this would make more sense to use low power. Someone not cruising, day sailing or overnight weekending, in this situation could use electric only and recharge when they got back. There'd be no need for anything else unless they take occasional cruises. Our normal sailing mode is cruising and anchoring out, with occasional marina stays. There are times when we travel some in canals, so the high power generator mode is needed. IOW, there are times when we need to play motorboat for hours, days or maybe even weeks at a time. Low power battery mode: Yes, we know how to drop and weigh anchor under sail, but sometimes there's little or no margin for error. Easier and safer to douse the sails and flip a switch. Getting in and out of "port" when needed for supplies, clearing in/out, etc. Ever try to creep though reefs visually under sail? Rather than go on, just look back how you use your engine. If it's say less than a 1/2 hour a day if cruising or less than an hour day-sailing, pure electric would work for you. Think about how nice it would be to flip a switch and have instant power for whatever reason. Maybe the winds are light and you want to come about and your boat is one of those that's reluctant or very slow to do so in light conditions. Hard over, flip the switch, come about, flip the switch off. The 110 VAC generator gives another plus of power for A/C if you want to burn the fuel, fast charging with a large charger, etc. Heck, I might pull the propane stove and put in an electric one. I wonder how that would compare to "cooking with gas", fuel and cost wise? >It seems to me that saving space is the biggest advantage of a >diesel-electric drive. You do get rid of the gearbox but do you need a >speed change between the motor and the propeller? As I had mentioned, it would take a recduction for much better propellor efficiency. A chain drive would be cheapest, but a bit noisy. Notched belt would be much ore expensive, but quiet. One could maybe find a "gearbox" surplus or junked or... The motor brushes can be electricly swapped for reverse. >In short, is there a distinct advantage in the diesel-electric drive? I don't think there is a "distinct" advantage and in some cases a disadvantage. It depends on one's boating style. Our case I feel there is an advantage. Wayne had mentioned his trawler - in his case I would say big disadvantage. As mentioned before, I've had lots of experience with electric power and with "green" power - solar and wind. Whenever you use those you have to look at your needs and wants and decide if it's for you. You can't just turn on stuff or jump into your electric car and drive it like a combustion one. You have to do a bit of "resouce management". Most folks want "energy on demand" and are unwilling to put up with the "work" to use or the waiting sometimes. >I'm not trying to start an argument here, I know what the advantages >are for a diesel-electric drilling rig, for example, and I'm trying to >figure out if there is one for a small engined sailing boat. No argumant, Bruce :-) I know where you're coming from. It's a complex subject with all kinds of "gotcha's". I wish it were like in the movies, where they have a 2 X 2 ft. solar panel on a 20 passenger electric transport and it runs it at 90 MPH all day and even all night (from starlight???). It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Other than a dinghy, I wouldn't even consider an electric power boat. Well, maybe a slow 'African Queen' type on a lake or bayou for short weekend use. Rick >The plan is to use a fork lift raise/lower motor. This is the exact >same motor as used in electric cars, but with a much heavier case. It >will develop 35 HP at 120 VDC 20 golf cart batts and you're there ! You also get 1100 pounds of extra internal ballast and one heck of a house bank as part of the deal. :-) >>The plan is to use a fork lift raise/lower motor. This is the exact >>same motor as used in electric cars, but with a much heavier case. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You also get 1100 pounds of extra internal ballast and one heck of a >house bank as part of the deal. :-) Yeah you rite, Wayne! Actually, that's what's used in electric cars - 20 golf cart batteries. Energy equivalent of 1-1/2 gallons of gasoline! Actually, I figure on running the motor on 36V for low mode and direct off the generator for high mode. Won't get full power though unless I put in a 30KW generator (YOW!). Figure on getting about 20 HP. Rick >Won't get full power though unless I >put in a 30KW generator (YOW!). Figure on getting about 20 HP. I've got a 20kw Kohler in a sound shield. It's about 800 pounds but might make an attractive dining table in the middle of the main cabin. http://tinyurl.com/kvadvo http://www.kohlerpower.com/onlinecatalog/pdf/g2087.pdf >>I can see what you are doing but I still don't see an advantage - this >>is not to say that "I wanna do it that way" is not a valid reason. But [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > Rick I encourage those of you discussing the efeiency of electric propulsion to read the following artical. http://www.cruisingworld.com/how-to/systems/perpetuated-motion-36169.html Newly built cruise liners use electric power as their main engines located under the hull on swiveling pods thus eliminating the drag of the rudders. Regards, JR >I encourage those of you discussing the efeiency of electric propulsion to >read the following artical. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Regards, > JR There is a considerable amount of snake oil in that write up. His electric wheel was proceeded by the Le Tourneau, and I might point out that LeTourneau is a highly respected equipment manufacturer with a world wide market, not someone who is re-inventing the wheel. His innovative electric motor is just the standard universal electric motor widely used in hand tools like drills and grinders as well as DC motors. His permanent magnet field motors are so new that every electric pump motor in my boat, some more then ten years old, are made that way. His definition of torque and horsepower are incorrect, Torque is not "force times distance" and horsepower is not "force times distance times time" . His main claim to fame seems to be that he wants to designs and manufacturers a motor to meet the exact requirement of hull and propeller which means that he is going to either design and stock a large number of different size and capacity motors or do exactly what he complains the big companies do - have a few standard sizes and pick the closest. A custom designed motor is going to cost several multiples of what an off the shelf motor does. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Great to see the post for the PDQ 39' for sale http://www.pdq36.blogspot.com is so active. Oh and I've had lots of activity on the boat. One deal for $179,950USD just fell through when the buyer couldn't get financing... no fault of the boat or asking price... the guy just was a little short on cash. The PDQ I'm selling carries 55 gallons of gas. I burn 1.1 gallons per hour (both engines combined) and crusie at 7 knots at 4200 rpm. WOT 5400 rpm yeilds only 1 more knot of speed, but cost nearly 2 more gallons per hour. The engines last around 1500 hours before needing major work and replacement cost is only $2500 USD each and then you have new engines for another 1500 hours. Oh and you can tilt the engines out of the water when not in use so you sail faster and reduce maintenance. You can do the math to determine the range. At the end of the day the fact is that a partial tank of gas pretty much gets the boat between available gas stations in the Caribbean.. if one was so silly to motor all the way. If you think you need more range than that you should buy a power boat or take some sailing lessons. Of course we are sailors so we usually sail. I'll point out this fact as pretty much everyone with a sailboat prefers to sail so the effective range of the boat in actuality is many many multiples of strict fuel range. Oh and most real crusiers sail in trade wind areas so the idea of motoring calms is pretty weak... when you have no schedule you wait for the wind. When I sailed across the South Pacific ocean in 2006-2008 one passage was 3100 nautical miles over 21 days (Mexico to Marquesas). In the 21 days I ran the engine a total of 9 hours. This is the 21st century and solar power and wind generators are the way to go. Using a engine that is intended for propulsion to charge batteries is a terribly inefficient and frankly stupid for any "real" extend cruising. In the reality of "real" cruising the most fuel consumed per year is that used by outboard engine on the tender (typically a Yamaha 15 hp 2- stoke the engine you either have it or wish you had it). Passages are made under sail. Cheers David Kane www.dksail.com >His main claim to fame seems to be that he wants to designs and >manufacturers a motor to meet the exact requirement of hull and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the closest. A custom designed motor is going to cost several >multiples of what an off the shelf motor does. My neighbor has a racing parts shop with a complete of NC machine tools. He could do one custom prop as cheaply as a hundred. Casady >>I can see what you are doing but I still don't see an advantage - this >>is not to say that "I wanna do it that way" is not a valid reason. But [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >water cooling. Oh, a extra plus is the motor, like all DC motors, will >work in "reverse" as a generator under sail. My thinking was along these lines: In this part of the world we have two seasons, the S.W. Monsoons when it rains a lot and we get a lot of squalls, sort of lousy weather, with quite a bit of wind; and the N.E. Monsoons when we get no rain, beautiful sunny days, and not much wind. If you are going anywhere in the N.Easterlies you will probably have to motor about half of each day. In the case of my boat (40 ft. sloop with 4-107 engine) I would be motoring at about 2,000 RPM, and probably about 25 - 30H.P driving the prop. Can you run your electric motor tucked down there in the bilges for, say 5 hours continuously, producing, say 25 HP, with no cooling? >Not sure what you mean about the severe corrosion you've seen in water >cooled generators. I've seen a bunch of marine generators over 30 >years old still running and looking good. Granted I haven made a study of auxiliary generators (not having one) but I have seen a couple of water cooled generators (the electric making part) that used see water flowing through passages in the frame for cooling - I assume in order to build a smaller device - and there was severe corrosion in and around these cooling passages. Sufficient that I didn't think that one of them should be returned to service. >>I wonder about the high power/low power control systems. What is the >>advantage of this? with the diesel auxiliary I might use idle to back [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >power back. In a way it does make sense because when we get back we'll >plug in and recharge "free" (fixed rate electricity). What is the advantage of low power mode? Simple avoiding the loss through the SCR system? >If we moved to a nearby marina, our trip to the lake would be about >1/4 mile. Now this would make more sense to use low power. Someone not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >conditions. Hard over, flip the switch, come about, flip the switch >off. But nearly all of my sailing now is just going somewhere so it is turn on the autopilot or adjust the wind vane and that is it until we find a hiddy hole for the evening :-) None of this frantic "Helm alee" stuff. >The 110 VAC generator gives another plus of power for A/C if you want >to burn the fuel, fast charging with a large charger, etc. Heck, I >might pull the propane stove and put in an electric one. I wonder how >that would compare to "cooking with gas", fuel and cost wise? My major complaint about electric stoves is that when you want a cup of coffee you need to start the generator. The gas you flip a switch and turn a know and you got heat. >>It seems to me that saving space is the biggest advantage of a >>diesel-electric drive. You do get rid of the gearbox but do you need a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >"resouce management". Most folks want "energy on demand" and are >unwilling to put up with the "work" to use or the waiting sometimes. I'm still a skeptic. I think I'll do a little research and see what the calcs show. I would take as parameters something similar to what I have now - absolute maximum power - 40 H.P. Range - dependant on fuel carried. Max continuous, say 30 HP. Not equal to the diesel I have now but probably pretty much the way I actually use the engine. >>I'm not trying to start an argument here, I know what the advantages >>are for a diesel-electric drilling rig, for example, and I'm trying to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Rick Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Its a bit ironic that the one thread about my boat, and about a topic I've pondered often finds me traveling with limited 'net access. About 2/3 of the PDQ 36's were built with outboards, the rest with twin 18 HP diesels. (A few have only one engine - one has one diesel and one electric outboard.) Because the outboard is forward of the rudders (and slightly inboard) they do not come out of the water in rough weather. Most of the PDQ's have done extensive cruising, mostly on the East Coast and Caribbean. Many (about 30%?) have been to Bermuda, some are in South America, and a few have crossed the Atlantic. While not quite World Passagemakers, they are not weekend cruisers. As it turns out, some of the most heavily traveled are the outboard (or "classic") version simply because they are the oldest. The owner of the "39" had intended to do a circumnavigation but decided to custom build a larger cat. The question of diesel v outboard comes up often. The market is roughly split, with a slight edge to the outboards. We went with the diesel since we knew we would be doing a lot of river/ICW cruising. Some factors: OB cons: The outboards are loud when run at high RPM. The OBs have limited charging - a genset is used by most "classic" owners (often a small Honda). The OB doesn't make hot water - a propane heater is employed. These have been problematical. The OBs push the boat well but suffer some in rough water, and the top speed are about a knot less than the inboards. (The diesels can push against a 35kt breeze with chop at 5 knots.) Fuel usage (by the gallon) is about double the diesel. OB pros: Cheaper, even counting the added expense of genset and water heater. Easy maintenance Can be replaced in a few hours for modest expense. Can be raised for better sailing performance. Use less space. In addition, the LRCs (diesel version) were built with skeg mounted rudders (for beaching) rather than spade, plus have extra deck hardware etc, and end up weighing about 800 pounds more. Enough for now - the Steamship is in and I can leech off its wifi! Jeff - aboard Loki, Vineyard Haven >>I already explained that my range is far more than your absurd and >>self serving "estimates", Wayne. You very likely stop at a fuel dock [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >month and I can't think of any with outboards. People just don't do >it and there are good reasons. Not quite. I follow this couple occasionally, and they have a boat similar to the subject boat. Maybe the same without the stern extensions. They've been up and down the east coast, and spend a lot of time in the Bahamas. From the journal, it appears he loves to hoist sail, but motors fine when the wind is down. There are clear advantages of OB's on sailboats, and disadvantages. I see it as a simple case of horses for courses. --Vic >Not quite. I follow this couple occasionally, and they have a boat >similar to the subject boat. Maybe the same without the stern >extensions. Oops. http://www.tendervittles.net/crew.html >>Not quite. I follow this couple occasionally, and they have a boat >>similar to the subject boat. Maybe the same without the stern >>extensions. > >Oops. >http://www.tendervittles.net/crew.html We crossed paths with them a few years ago coming south on the Atlantic ICW in the fall. They spend a lot of time on the VHF radio for some reason and everyone within 20 miles got to know the name of the boat after a while. >There are clear advantages of OB's on sailboats, and disadvantages. >I see it as a simple case of horses for courses. Some say that there are exceptions to every rule, and some say that the exceptions make the rule. When you look at the compromises that have to be made when cruising with an outboard such as using a portable generator for power and heating water with propane, it seems clear to me that the exceptions make the rule. It can be done, but it is second best. Portable generators are an abomination and should be outlawed except for emergencies. Even the quiet ones are too noisy. >>There are clear advantages of OB's on sailboats, and disadvantages. >>I see it as a simple case of horses for courses. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Portable generators are an abomination and should be outlawed except > for emergencies. Even the quiet ones are too noisy. Here's a boat that gives you even more flexibility and range! http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/S9JMAL3vIiCwz8j0krzeHg?feat=directlink Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>There are clear advantages of OB's on sailboats, and disadvantages. >>I see it as a simple case of horses for courses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >clear to me that the exceptions make the rule. It can be done, but >it is second best. I like the "horses of courses" cliche better. Maybe because I was a horseplayer for years. Besides, that "exception proves the rule" is a complete bastardization of the original science saw, that said "The exception proves out the rule." Meaning rules have no exceptions. Except for general rules, rules of thumb, etc, etc, of course (-: >Portable generators are an abomination and should be outlawed except >for emergencies. Even the quiet ones are too noisy. Don't know except from reading, but I've read that a very substantial number of sailboats have a portable generator, regardless of propulsion power. The PDQ owners whose link I posted have a Kiss wind generator and I think at least 150 watts of solar cells. I recall him logging about running the gen one night at the wife's insistence for an A/C respite from oppressive heat and no breeze, but don't think he runs it often. Anchorage noise is always argued about. I come down on the quiet side. But you can't eliminate smaller boats that will run the small generators. The generators are getting smaller and cheaper. A better approach might be tackling the question of sound suppression/redirection. From some investigation it seems that muffling can be improved, but there are still other mechanical noises that should be suppressed or redirected. Most of the insulating boxes made are for RV's and are permanent installations. I saw one post somewhere where a cruiser had dinghied to an offending boat and found that the Honda generator was enclosed on 3 sides by portable sound-deadening walls of foam. Unfortunately, the open side was facing this guy's boat. He went around the boat and found the other 3 sides were quiet. I'm thinking an encompassing and collapsible sound shield that would direct all noise upwards could be designed. It would have to allow air flow for cooling and breathing, and be fireproof of course. Not a big deal it seems, even if it had to assist cooling air with a fan(s). Maybe cone-shaped, big end up. See, if I could afford to buy a test generator, a few hundred dollars of materials, and Billy Mays hadn't died, I might become a millionaire. Oh well. Anybody here who wants to do it, just go ahead. My cut is 15% of the gross. If it comes to market cheap enough (Billy would want it to be $19.95 with a pair of oven mitts thrown in at no additional charge) anchorage peer pressure would force everybody to use one. Another option the OB motor manufacturers haven't jumped on is higher output alternators. Cowling size could be increased to accommodate them. Then you have your genset running quietly, hanging on the stern, and water cooled. The cruiser/anchorage market probably isn't big enough to get them interested. Anyway, my preference is economical and green. Solar and wind charging adequate batteries. Not a floating fuel tank. Until it gets real hot, maybe. --Vic >>The underlying issue may be that you were a powerboater at heart all >>along. Sailboats just maybe aren't your cup of tea, despite your time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >cruising sailors that we see in the Bahamas are carrying extra fuel on >deck in jerry jugs. There were a couple of long range boats that arrived here using outboards. One from Hungary and another from Italy. Both boats were small enough that inboard engines had ever been fitted. While both boats obviously got here neither owner bragged on having an outboard. The Italian boat, built by the individual who sailed it out here, is a super light weight sloop - all sheathed foam and minimal ballast, light weight aluminum mast, etc., probably is so constructed that an inboard couldn't be fitted with adding a substantial amount of weight and the last trip the owner took with the boat, before selling it, I remember he was complaining about trying to go up wind with only the motor. I think it is very much a matter of "horses for courses". Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>You can say what you want about diesels but outboards absolutely do >>>not have the fuel range, durability or alternator capacity for long [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >familiar with the long history of people who have cruised with no >power at all. This is the 21st century however. And quite a few of those pure sailors install and engine after they have been sailing a while. It is lone thing to "rough it" for a long week end or a two week vacation but give some thought to setting off around the world where you will be living on your boat for the next 3 or 4 years. A cold beer IS nice to have. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) The trouble with you is that you're a RAPIST! It's pretty sad when a rapist is allowed to go free! I figured out what happened to this poor boy. 50% or more of 5% of inmates are raped by the jailers. Gregory Hall = Cecil Warren = CONVICTED RAPIST! You've failed to register as a SEX OFFENDER. This is punishable by imprisonment! http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=35467 Call 1-888-357-7332 to report him. He lives in Islamorada, Florida. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.