[MarkofSeaLife]

I would prefer to have much more, to be far offshore. Not necessarily to motor alot, but to run the generator and have the option to motor, if sailing would put us in danger of incoming weather.

On a 2,000nm passage and you have say 800nms fuel range (very few have that range) when do you use it?
The first half? The second half? Not use it at all because you are scared to use it?
You put some artificial Date of Arrival and now you need to go above Hull Speed or the Coast Guard will come looking for you?
What weather are you going to outrun which you know about 800 nms in advance?
How many gallons does your generator use and why didn't you buy a solar panel?

When you get to your cruising grounds and you have 800nms of fuel sloshing in your tanks what the hell do you do with it while it slowly grows algy and tars up your tank?

 

[Minnewaska]

Minne's post is very helpful. Using Mine's boat as an example, which has a comparatively large motoring range of 500 miles, and the roughly 6,000 mile passage from Capetown to Barbados or Trinidad that I mentioned above, that represents a range that is roughly 8-9% of the passage length. I suppose that it is probably possible to do a circumnavigation where the longest passages are something like 3,000 miles, which starts to get Minne's motoring range up to around 17 percent of the longest passage.

(Edit: Mark's post crossed with mine, but also sheds a lot of light on the point I was trying to raise)

Jeff

Isn't Ascension Island and St Helena Island somewhere between Capetown and the Caribbean? You could go direct, but if fuel were limiting, those are available layovers. I'm not sure why a circumnavigation would ever skip those places. They are exactly the types of stops I would make, as there is virtually no other way I would ever find myself to them.

Just like Newport to the Caribbean. Many see how they're doing on fuel and will stop in Bermuda, as necessary. Of course, weather sometimes lays a trip up too.

 

[chef2sail]

All this discussion about worldwide and long distance cruising is fascinating as well as interesting.

The majority of SN posting here are not of that type so let me interject another aspect into this conversation. Not being negative about the cruising aspects but maybe posting information / considerations which many SN may deem relevant to their usage of their boats.

I have to laugh as I see many boats the size of Minnie in my area with 70 plus gallon size fuel tanks. In spite of using generators this 70 gallons coupled with the fact they utilize their boats less than , 30 weeekends a year, many of them tell me the only fill their tanks once a year. Having fresh and good diesel in the tank is one reason we have an engine which has done so well I think. To these boats with the large fuel tanks having 50 spare gallons of extra fuel in the tanks sitting there in the dog days of summer at 90 plus degrees on the Chesapeake for a few months may not accomplish that clean , new fuel program. Many of them start the season with full tanks from their winter layup winterization and don’t fill up till maybe late August or September. This can’t be a good thing. That fuel may have gone in the previous November. ( 10 months old)

Addressing smaller tankage in boats: Since many Sailnetters have boats similar to mine 28-40 ft range. I’ll bet 15-30 gallon tanks. This allows turnover of their fuel a number of times so it’s relatively fresh. Most of us try not to get into the last 1/4 of the tank, as on many older boats that could me a better chance of possible sediment, though we clean our tanks and polish our fuel fuel every 3 years or so. ( our boat is now 34 years young )

Like Sander mentioned it is relatively easy to get fuel in our areas, and we are we are not traveling to far flung areas, headed for the doldrums, or crossing the pond on either side. If I were traveling that far I would follow advice presented by many previous posters who are cruisers.

Specifically in our case. We have an 18 gallon tank. 30 hp Yanmar GMF30 getting .6 to.8 gallon per hour depending on conditions. That’s a 30 to 22 hour range or 180- 150 miles. ( conservatively). When we travel our furthest distance which would be non stop from Annapolis to Newport, 345 miles non stop motoring we carry 4 -5 gallon jerry cans.

However most of our sailing is weekends as well as costal. Even if I had a larger tank, I would opt to not fill it so I could turn the fuel over more often. Most of my weekly sailing is 50-60 miles. From what I see with many of my friends here on the Chesapeake, and elsewhere, they don’t usually average what we do weekly as they don’t get out as much or travel as far on weekends, and the great percentage (80%) of boats don’t have generators.

My turnover according to my records which I keep is that I use approx 100 gallons of diesel per year. That turns the tank 5 times and I can be confident we have relative fresh fuel. Many of my colleagues in similar situations usually refuel 3 times at the most all year.

Fuel capacity to many/ most weekend / costal Sailing really is not as important as a long range cruiser. We ALWAYS keep a 5 gallon jerry in the lazzarette, and it gets dumped in when refueling and refilled then. That jug is 5-6 hours cruising time and we usually can get to refuel in our sailing grounds.

In actuality water is what drives us into a marina on our trips. We can carry 40/80/120 gallons at 12 lbs per gallon. Haleakula acts sluggish with 120. Remember we aren’t long range cruisers with a watermaker , so while we don’t flaunt our water , we don’t ration it either. Water tends to be our limiting factor, not fuel for 5he type of sailing and our sailing area.

 

[colemj]

Since the OP specifically asked about fuel capacity for a circumnavigation, whatever people who daysail on a bay use isn't very meaningful in this thread.

This time, it is those of us using our boats for long-term and long-distance who have the more meaningful perspective and experience.

Personal attack removed- Jeff_H SailNet moderator

FWIW, I responded to the OP in another forum, so will save some of you the mental anguish of twisting my words and working yourselves into a lather here.

Mark

 

[.216558]

As said by many desired tankage is solely dependent on philosophy of cruising.
Remember Lin and Larry had NO fuel and they seemed to get around OK. Sailboat races around the world require no fuel be used for propulsion.
Still it’s fairly routine for boats on the Caribbean 1500 or the SDR to run short and pull into Bermuda to refill. We haven’t had to.
We have 200g. We fill up before leaving for the Caribbean and again before leaving for Rhode Island. We make water but only run the generator very rarely getting our electrons from solar and wind. Generator is noisy and I hate it. Sometimes we top off when arriving. Our annual consumption is on the order of 300-400g. per year given we run the AC time to time. Think that’s about average for boats with similar sailing programs.
This business of not powering is for the hard core and my hat goes off to them. When our VMG goes below 5 kts the yanmar goes on. Most boats will burn 150-200g if the trip of 1500-1800 miles is mostly windless. Beyond not wanting to be out so long that weather becomes more likely those without water-makers will run into issues or baby wipes and eating your fallback food stores sucks. Frig and freezer are supplied by alt energy so no problem.
So to answer the OP having a bunch of fuel in tanks not containers is a good thing. How much totally depends on your attitude and how slow you’re willing to go. If going cruising can’t have too much.

 

[Jeff_H]

Since the OP specifically asked about fuel capacity for a circumnavigation, whatever people who daysail on a bay use isn't very meaningful in this thread.

This time, it is those of us using our boats for long-term and long-distance who have the more meaningful perspective and experience.

Chef2sail, Personal attack removed- Jeff_H SailNet moderator

FWIW, I responded to the OP in another forum, so will save some of you the mental anguish of twisting my words and working yourselves into a lather here.

Mark

While the original poster, was clearly asking about circumnavigation and much of the discussion so far has been about long distance cruising, I suggest that Chef2sail's point about having excess tankage is a good one and relevant. In my mind, one of the purposes and objectives to having a topic discussed on a public forum is to obtain diverse opinions and to have an exposure to reasonable counterpoints.

In this case the counterpoint is the caution that while large capacity tanks can be an advantage for the distance cruiser, they are not necessarily an advantage for those who don't regularly make longer passages, and there is a limit to how much liquid can be transported before the added weight has a noticeable impact on performance.

Jeff

 

[Jeff_H]

Isn't Ascension Island and St Helena Island somewhere between Capetown and the Caribbean? You could go direct, but if fuel were limiting, those are available layovers. I'm not sure why a circumnavigation would ever skip those places. They are exactly the types of stops I would make, as there is virtually no other way I would ever find myself to them.

Just like Newport to the Caribbean. Many see how they're doing on fuel and will stop in Bermuda, as necessary. Of course, weather sometimes lays a trip up too.

I think that your point is very well taken. We tend to use the word, "Circumnavigation" like it implies a singular itinerary. For some its a sprint with few stops, and for others its a leisurely meander spending lots of time in those places that appeal to their imagination.

While I have never really aspired to doing a circumnavigation, when I hear of someone talking about doing a circumnavigation in three years, that seems like a rush to me. Its not that I think that they are wrong for doing the trip that way, but more that my personality would want to spend a lot more time in any place that I went to and I would want to go to a lot of places. I could easily imagine spending 3 or more years simply exploring the Mediterranean, 3 years more in Southeast Asia, or perhaps a similar amount of time in the Pacific Northwest.

And so while both of the boats that I mentioned were essentially doing deliveries, (I only chose those two boats because these were the only boats I know who had made very long non-stop passages i.e. 6,000 and 8,500 miles, and which I had asked about fuel consumption since the boats came stock with a 13 gallon tank but had locations to put two more 13 gallon tanks) I agree with you, that I would have wanted to make stops along the way, and that there were places to bail out, and fuel up should that have been prudent.

 

[colemj]

In my mind, one of the purposes and objectives to having a topic discussed on a public forum is to obtain diverse opinions and to have an exposure to reasonable counterpoints.

Great. Then please moderate the forum with this in mind, or at least be consistent with your admonitions. I have been shut down, dismissed, and chased around continually by a small group here that insists on marginalizing anything beyond their tiny world and experiences.

There was no personal attack in my original post that was any worse than many landed by a small group here.

Go ahead and search back on some of the threads I've participated in.

Mark

 

[chef2sail]

Since the OP specifically asked about fuel capacity for a circumnavigation, whatever people who daysail on a bay use isn't very meaningful in this thread.

This time, it is those of us using our boats for long-term and long-distance who have the more meaningful perspective and experience.
Bbbb
Personal attack removed- Jeff_H SailNet moderator

FWIW, I responded to the OP in another forum, so will save some of you the mental anguish of twisting my words and working yourselves into a lather here.

Mark

Mark,

I think it was relevant to many who read all the threads and learn from reading them. Most SN posters probably are not long term cruisers like you , I referenced that . Posting in threads can not be controlled by any group and some " drift" is understandable though I tried to keep my post to the aforementioned OP posting at it was not irrelevant at all. It just wasn't relevant to you as a cruiser.

It also caused me to think about the other consumable ... water. To prevent too large a "drift"I opened up another new thread which concerned that. Feel free to contribute to that thread as even though aimed coastal/ weekend sailors as long as you can keep your personal attacks towards me under control.

Carrying that animus from previous threads towards me does not help but reignite a situation which I am trying to stay away from. Remember some here, including me, were accused by you and your friend of following certain people to threads to start attacks. Let's just let all this go please . It takes two to do that to succeed.

 

[capta]

On our sail from Bali to the Seychelles, 3563.04 nautical miles, we powered off the anchor for ten minutes and sailed until we powered to anchor in Mahe, another 15 minutes. I believe it was 22 days under sail with no calms; a great trip.

 

[Don L]

It’s important to have enough fuel capacity on the boat for the combination if powering the boat the desired amount, and twice that amount to pour on Internet forum fires 🔥

:chainsaw

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

Isn't Ascension Island and St Helena Island somewhere between Capetown and the Caribbean? You could go direct, but if fuel were limiting, those are available layovers. I'm not sure why a circumnavigation would ever skip those places.

I didn't do that way, I went up the Red Sea. But from what I understand, St Helena is not flash for fuel as the anchorage has a Rock pier and it's hell to get into and out of the dinghy... And you have to jerry jug it.
I am not sure about Ascension Island.
Most people stop in both because the 6,500nms is a long way to Trinidad and few go via Brazil.

But wind in the south Atlantic isn't the problem. So fuel is not a problem, usually.

They were testing a spinnaker for a cargo ship on that route for that very reason.

As for time to do a whole circumnavigation or bypassing some places, it's each to their own. If you don't like a particular culture why stop there?

It's not as easy to do a second or third lap as it was before, but that shouldn't stop people.

Mark

 

[Jeff_H]

On our sail from Bali to the Seychelles, 3563.04 nautical miles, we powered off the anchor for ten minutes and sailed until we powered to anchor in Mahe, another 15 minutes. I believe it was 22 days under sail with no calms; a great trip.

That sounds like my kind of ideal long passage, 150 mile days plus, and no engine. Please talk a little about the equipment that you were operating during the trip and whether were you able to generate enough electrical power through renewable sources that you did not need to run the engine/genset in the interim.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[colemj]

Remember Lin and Larry had NO fuel and they seemed to get around OK.
....

So to answer the OP having a bunch of fuel in tanks not containers is a good thing.

They didn't have an engine, so no need for fuel - it isn't a good example. And to be fair about it, almost nobody ever cruised like they did without an engine, and almost nobody does now. Whatever drove Lin and Larry's original choice to go engineless, I'll bet a donut they got caught in this shtick with no good way to get out of it later in life - it became part of the definition of who they were. I know they relied often on others for tows and moving around.

Your last point is a good one. Too many boats with rails filled with jugs. One doesn't have to fill a large tank, but it is nice to have the ability for those times it is prudent.

Besides, it is a moot point. Choosing a boat is rarely done with the fuel tankage as a primary requirement. Any more recent catamaran for RTW cruising will have at least 80gal. So the boat will be chosen based on many factors and tradeoffs, and the tankage will be what it is.

If I were to spec a new boat, I'd want a larger fuel tank and a smaller water tank. Say 150-200gal fuel and 50-75gal water. We replaced both our tanks before leaving to cruise - 120gal fuel, 100gal water - and after gaining years of cruising experience, I'm kicking myself for not making that 150gal fuel and 70gal water (replacing now is major surgery).

Mark

 

[capta]

Remember Lin and Larry had NO fuel and they seemed to get around OK.

Whoa there pard. Apples and oranges here. lol
The Pardeys had a tiny boat that they could scull around with a big oar! Not an applicable comparison to the OP's "It will have a generator and cloths washer to keep my wife happy". lol

 

[colemj]

Posting in threads can not be controlled by any group and some " drift" is understandable

Give me a break. You and a few others here have a long history of complaining about wanting thread posts controlled and not having drift in them.

Mark

 

[.216558]

Agree Lin and Larry is an extreme example. Still the point I was trying to make is valid. The majority of fuel used is for propulsion with the genset a close second. Now you can get rid of almost all genset usage with alt energy. We turn ours on once a month to keep it functional if alt. energy is cranking. When moving most boats will have additional loads of AP, radar, communications and navigation equipment. Still if moving alt. energy will keep up or if necessary hydro (watt and sea) generator will make more than your panels and wind combined. When still and not sailing our usage goes up. The OP states he will run a Spendide or equivalent so expect his experience will be periods of high energy usage even in absence of watermaker or AC. Expect the frig/freezer will be a big draw as well. A wife who needs a washer/dryer wil expect a frig(freezer. Therefore the major variable is when the air goes light do you sit and wait while decreasing your non propulsion energy use as well best you can or put the engine on. We lied hove to for 6 days letting weather gos by last trip home. Sky was overcast and wind light. Humidity near 100%. It was miserable and boring. Periodically turned on the watermaker, genset, and took showers. Watched movies, listened to music not headphones, everyone was on their devices, radar went on time to time to check for local weather. Liberated carbon fragments for at least an hour or two daily. Then sailed. With the lift from the Gulf Stream made good time but last day food and spirits were getting low so engine went on.
I would disagree will the statement people don’t consider tankage when choosing a boat. The maestro pointed out how important he thinks tankage is for a cruising boat.

 

[capta]

The majority of fuel used is for propulsion with the genset a close second.

Interestingly enough, our situation is exactly the reverse. Normally, 90% of our fuel consumption goes to the genset, but we sail in one of the best sailing areas in the world. One season we did nearly 2000 miles of inter island sailing (no crossings) and we ran the engine only about 20 hours.
Now that we are chartering, our operational consumption may be up 10 to 15%, but the genset still is the major consumer of our fuel. However, we have electric cooking, use a lot of kitchen appliances to make the cook's job easier on charter, 110vac refrigeration and a watermaker. As we have enough renewable energy sources for our 12 volt consumption, battery charging from the generator is just a perk.
I don't believe I've ever heard a serious cruiser say, "We carry way too much fuel in our tanks."

 

[capecodda]

We are short range coastal cruisers and day sailors so take this for what it's worth.

We spec-ed the 38' with 40 gallons of fuel and 100 gallons of water. Honestly, more fuel than we need, and you can always use more water. If I had to do it again, more water, less fuel. Coastal cruising sporadically up here, we're not using a water maker. Doesn't make sense as we are in harbors and would not use it regularly which they don't like.

I think if I was long term distance cruising offshore, I'd trade fuel capacity against water capacity and keep a good water maker going. I don't know if that makes sense practically by those who are doing it, but I hope it's not thread drift to ask. Any boat has just so much room for tanks for both, the optimum mix would seem to be the relevant question.

Onshore, coastal, short term, more water, less fuel. Offshore, long term, passage making, more fuel, less water and a water maker.

Is that right?

 

[colemj]

I would disagree will the statement people don't consider tankage when choosing a boat. The maestro pointed out how important he thinks tankage is for a cruising boat.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on that point. I meant that a boat is rarely chosen solely on its fuel capacity. Instead, there are a lot of variables and tradeoffs considered, and once the right boat is decided, the actual fuel capacity is a moot point.

For example, say one wanted 150gal of fuel, but the boat that ticks the boxes overall only has 80gal. In most cases, that boat will be the one.

So I was suggesting to not limit a boat search to only those containing a set amount of fuel tankage. Unless that is of utmost importance to one, of course.

Mark