A Sailor’s Motor Boat—Part 2

Artnautica LRC58 01_small

A couple of months ago I wrote a post on a fundamental problem for an aging voyaging sailor looking to transition to a motorboat:

For many of us, the sailboats we already have are better offshore motorboats than anything readily available out there on either the used or new boat market: safer, more comfortable at sea, dramatically more fuel efficient, and in many cases faster.

(If you did not read that article, you may wish to now, to give you some context while you read this one.)

What We Aging Sailors Need

What we aging sailors really need, or at least want, is a simple, high quality, live aboard, production motorboat that can cross oceans as well, or maybe even better, than our sailboats and that also is cheaper to own and easier to maintain.

The Need for Speed

But, at least for Phyllis and I, there is one other vital criteria that would govern the decision to transition to a motorboat:

We want to go at least as fast as we do now and preferably even faster, and we want to do that without increasing our current fuel burn or environmental footprint on a per mile basis.

And it is this last criteria that gives us a problem: Let’s say we want a motorboat to replace our McCurdy and Rhodes 56 sailboat. And let’s say we want a bit more room for our older age to give us even better equipment access and ease of moving around as our joints get stiffer.

We know that boats are sized by the weight, not length. So, since our present boat tips the scales fully loaded at about 52,000 pounds, let’s aim at a motorboat with a displacement of around 50,000 pounds, which will give us way more usable room because we get rid of most of the ballast and the rig.

Looking around at that size, we could buy a boat like the venerable Nordhavn 46, but trawlers like this all have one big drawback. They are only even halfway fuel efficient at speed to length ratios up to 1.1, tops, which equals 6.8 knots at best. Add in a bit of drag from stabilizers and you are down to 150 miles a day.

And we just can’t see transitioning to a motor boat with an economical passage speed that is a full 30 to 40 miles/day slower than our present sailboat, even when she is under power. In fact, if we’re going to go to all the trouble and aggravation of changing boats, we want to at least have the option of going faster than we do now.

Sure, we could buy say a Nordhavn 50, and get day’s runs comparable to our present sailboat,  but that’s a huge boat that is way beyond our budget, both purchase or maintenance and, in addition, is a boat that burns about twice as much fuel per mile as we do now. And we don’t even want to think about what she will burn at 10 knots.

Is there a solution? Well, not yet, but there could be. Before we go any further, we need to understand the factors that govern speed and fuel burn.

Hull Speed, Or Not

You’ve all heard of hull speed.  You know, the speed generally quoted as 1.34 x SQRT of waterline length that a displacement boat can’t exceed—the longer the boat, the faster it can go. Well, turns out that things are really not that simple. In fact, hull speed is pretty fungible and not very useful.

What we really need to talk about is efficient speed to length ratios. And here’s the thing—read slowly, this is important:

As boats get thinner (higher beam to length ratio) the speed to length ratio that they are efficient at goes up.

Now we have that clear, suppose you started with the same 50,000 pound target but made the boat 55 feet on the waterline instead of the Nordhavn 46’s 38.25 feet. Well, obviously, as the boat gets longer, if she is not going to get heavier and therefore more expensive, we need to make her thinner and shallower.

There are a lot of variables here but we don’t need to get too pedantic to make the fundamental point, so let’s assume a beam of 14 feet and a draft of 4 feet. By the way, reducing the draft has beneficial effects on efficiency too.

This will result in the efficient speed to length ratio jumping to about 1.2, which yields a speed of 8.9 knots. See, we have a double win here:

The boat is longer on the water and the efficient speed to length ratio has gone up.

Knock that speed back to 8.5 knots once some kind of stabilization is taken into account, and we have 200 miles a day for the same, or perhaps just a little more, fuel than the Nordhavn needs to do 150 miles day.

So our miles per gallon actually get better than the Nordhavn 46 (and probably better than our sailboat too) even though we are going faster.

Wow, how cool is that!

And it gets better. Long thin boats like this can operate at speed to length ratios of as much as 1.4 without the fuel burn going off the chart, and that comes out at an incredible 10 knots or 240 miles a day. Bermuda in 60 hours, anyone?

Designs Yes, Boats No

Several designers have drawn boats that will fill this specification, but very few have been actually built and those that have tend to be one-off boats so heavily customized to the owner’s requirements that they lose three-quarters of their value the day they are launched and still have trouble finding a buyer when the owner discovers, often in the first few years after launch, that their dream ship is actually a quirky hard to maintain monster that no one wants, least of all them, resulting in a perfect storm of wealth destruction at just the time in their lives when they can least afford it. (Have a look at Yachtworld to see what I mean: having a custom boat built is one of the biggest wealth destroyers known to humankind.)

So to add to our requirements, our theoretical boat needs to be built in a reasonably long production run so it can be properly debugged and develop a brand, which is absolutely the best way to assure good resale value—look at what Nordhavn have done in that regard.

To date, there is no such boat, at least that I know of. That is other than Steve and Linda Dashew’s 64 motorboats in production in New Zealand, but those are just about twice the size (displacement) of the boat I sketched out, are quite complex, and cost a great deal of money—if you have to ask…

Artnautica 58

This is only one of the several layouts Dennis has drawn and is experimenting with, so please don't fixate on the details. I have only included it to show how much usable volume there is in the boat, particularly in this version with the extended cabin.

This is only one of the several layouts Dennis has drawn and is experimenting with, so please don’t fixate on the details. I have only included it to show how much usable volume there is in the boat, particularly in this version with the extended cabin. Click to see larger.

But a few months ago I came across a fascinating boat that is actually in-build in New Zealand by her designer, Dennis Harjamaa, with the goal of producing a prototype boat that can form the basis of a production boat that may satisfy many of the goals I have laid out. Dennis calls his boat the Artnautica 58.

The boat looks, at first glance, very like the Dashew boats, but in fact has a very different hull form—much shallower and flatter aft, and far lighter. In fact, at 35,000 pounds Dennis’ boat is lighter than Morgan’s Cloud, a third the weight of the smallest Dashew boats, and smaller than the boat I postulated above.

But by being smaller and lighter the price of a production version looks to be in the US$600,000 range. A point that puts her within reach of many retiring sailors, as long as they have a reasonable expectation of her holding her value well.

In fact, if a sailboat owner can sell his present boat for say $200,000 and buy a boat like the Artnuatica for say $600,000, own her for say 10 years, and sell her for say an inflation adjusted $300,000, there is a strong argument that this course of action is actually cheaper than keeping the sailboat since the annual cost of ownership on the motor boat could be as little as half that of the sailboat, depending on usage profile. (See my previous post for information that supports this rather startling assertion.)

Now having said all that, the Artnuatica has an as yet untried hull form and her interior is constrained by her very narrow beam, to the point that liveaboard owners will need to make some substantial sacrifices. However, Phyllis and I did some rough sketches showing that with a bit of thought, and by extending the salon aft one more station from the prototype, an interior could be designed that would have as much usable volume as our 56 foot sailboat.

Give The Guy Some Credit

Sure, it is easy to criticize a boat as radical as the Artnautica, but rather than throwing rocks, we give Dennis, her builder and designer, huge credit for trying something new and cool, and being willing to gamble everything—he sold his house to finance the build—to make the boat a reality. And there are already pretty concrete plans for a second hull.

You can follow along with Dennis on his Facebook page as he builds. And one thing you will learn there, as we did, is that Dennis is a detail freak after our own hearts.

Coming Soon

The next post in this series, that we will publish in a few days, will be an analysis of the Artnautica hull form by Matt Marsh, AAC technical correspondent. So please hold any thoughts you may have on that subject for that post.

Will We Buy?

Will we be buying an Artnautica? Well, we are pretty happy with Morgan’s Cloud, at least until the bones get even creakier, so probably not anytime soon…but then again, if she fits the specification that we have been talking about in this post and the last, and a full production run gets going…hum.

Another Approach

By the way, there’s another way to take advantage of more efficient speed to length ratios: two thin hulls. But that’s a-whole-nother post in itself…

{ 31 comments… add one }

  • Dick Stevenson October 2, 2013, 4:58 pm

    John, It is really very nice to have someone keeping a finger on the pulse of things relevant to what we do now and might do in the future. Much appreciated. Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy, Gauda, The Netherlands

    • John October 2, 2013, 6:30 pm

      Hi Dick,

      Thanks very much for the kind words.

  • Jean-Claude GUILLOT October 2, 2013, 5:57 pm

    Do you have any comments about the Greenline hybrid motorboats ? I find the concept interesting.
    Jean-Claude GUILLOT – SV Bauhinia

    • Matt Marsh October 2, 2013, 9:00 pm

      From what I’ve seen of the Greenlines, I’d consider them to be first and foremost an early-adopter’s technology showcase. An awful lot of design and engineering expertise went into those boats and their highly complex systems.

      That’s great for showing off. It’s great for cruising between yacht clubs, taking friends and colleagues on tours, and exploring well-developed coastal areas. It’s a show boat, meant to say “this is the cutting edge of all the technology we could throw at it”, and in the right market, that is Very Cool Indeed.

      For going beyond reach of help, or for voyaging without a VP’s budget, I’d have a harder time recommending this kind of technology. Long range cruising is a mission for which reliability, cost effectiveness and robustness are high priorities- hence something like the big Artnautica, which is well placed to score highly on these points.

  • John October 2, 2013, 6:26 pm

    Hi Jean-Claude,

    Interesting boat. But for offshore voyaging far from the grid, the Artnautica 58, with her low revving diesel and controllable pitch propeller, will actually be more fuel efficient and have a lower environmental impact than the Greenline.

    I, with advice from two engineers with extensive electric car experience, explain why this is in this post.

  • Eric Klem October 2, 2013, 6:41 pm


    I find this series very interesting although hopefully I am many years away from even thinking about the switch. With your first post, I couldn’t help but think of the Shannon 53 and 58 HPS. In many senses, they don’t meet your requirements just like the Dashew’s boats don’t because they are too expensive. They are still very interesting boats to think about from a design perspective.

    Recently, I was in a severe thunderstorm near one and they were zooming around under power at probably 12 knots doing circles around me (I don’t know why). The way that the boat moved easily through the chop and stayed level was very refreshing to watch. They are certainly not my type of boat, at least at this point in life, but I can appreciate them.


  • Stan October 3, 2013, 9:32 am

    Which post are you referring to in the following paragraph:
    “… there is a strong argument that this course of action is actually cheaper than keeping the sailboat since the annual cost of ownership on the motor boat could be as little as half that of the sailboat, depending on usage profile. (See my previous post for information that supports this rather startling assertion.)”

    • John October 3, 2013, 10:42 am

      Hi Stan, sorry, should have made that a link. Fixing it now.

  • scott flanders October 3, 2013, 9:37 am

    OK, I’ll rise to the bait. Speed isn’t necessarily a matter of need, it is a matter of want. I consider speed as voyage made good, not speed thru the water on a screaming reach. There are only 5 times in 12 years of long distance powerboat cruising we had to change course to a more comfortable heading. Also, a few or more hours difference in a passage from Labrador to Greenland for example, really doesn’t matter in the big picture because choosing a proper weather window is easy these days. What if’s are just that.

    What does matter when you are financially challenged like ourselves and want to live large is the cost per nautical mile over the years with that particular boat. Cost per nautical mile includes everything from purchase price, operating costs and resale. That’s the bottom line. Maintenance on a simple system powerboat is minimal if it is built properly and not a hull #1 as custom boats tend to be.

    Weight is your friend at sea. We are powerboaters but take a look at a lightweight charter type sailboat vs a proper sea boat loaded with cruising gear, spares and provisions. The difference at sea is huge as you know. Its the same with power; you can go fast for less with a super light boat that is flat aft but you will pound. A heavy boat is slower but you don’t get tired and tired sailors or powerboaters are more dangerous to themselves than any big seas.


    • John October 3, 2013, 10:54 am

      Hi Scott,

      I absolutely agree that speed is a want, not a need. Having said that, we want it.

      However, you are severely underestimating the weather avoidance benefits of speed, particularly in the Arctic. Based on the 18 years I have been crossing to and fro through the Arctic I can tell you categorically that being able to do 8 knots easily and 10 knots in a pinch over doubles the available weather windows for a comfortable and safe trip. This is particularly true late and early in the season, when we tend to be making these passages. Ditto fall trips to Bermuda.

      I also agree that an N46 would be in many ways a great boat for what we do.

      However, I do disagree on the desirability of weight and it’s effect on pounding. More on that coming from Matt in the next post.

    • Matt October 3, 2013, 4:01 pm

      Let’s say we want perfect seakeeping in any conditions, and we don’t care about an upper limit on weight.
      We’ll end up with a submarine. And, despite many years of trying by many salesmen, those just can’t get past a tiny niche market. Heavy-weather seakeeping is just one of many criteria that buyers use, and emphasizing it at the expense of other features will turn off some customers.

      If I had to get caught out in bad weather, I’d want to do it in a fairly substantial vessel that’s designed to take this kind of a beating, like a McCurdy-Rhodes or a Dashew.

      I would, however, prefer to have enough speed on tap to get away from the bad weather before it hits. I’m a wimp that way, and I’ll sacrifice a bit of comfort in a Force 9 if it means the odds of getting caught in a Force 9 are cut in half.

  • Jim Johnson October 3, 2013, 10:37 am

    Oh boy let’s get all excited about buying a powerboat. I thought you might be gone since you now talk instead of cruise. A powerboat would be perfect for you. You could have an office and, and……

    • John October 3, 2013, 10:51 am

      Hi Jim,

      I make no apology for taking a break from cruising after 22 years and some 140,000 miles. Voyaging is wonderful, but there are other worth while things in life, including the challenges and rewards of creating this site.

      And, by the way, interior volume is so low on my list of boat buying criteria, power or sail, that it barely registers.

  • Laurent October 3, 2013, 10:37 am

    I guess that the debate between motor cruising-boat & sail cruising boat (ease of use, environmental impact….) depends very much on which motor-cruising-boat and which sail-cruising-boats we are speaking of.
    Are they:
    – existing boats,
    – custom-designed-boats-not-too-far-from-mainstream-technologies-and-design-practices
    – or boats corresponding to radical technology or design changes

    Considering sail-cruising-boats. Maintream technologies of those boat as they are built today give higher than commonly expected environmental impact (when compared to similar pure-diesel motor-cruising-boats…), because of the environment costs of fabricating, and replacing when needed, its “wind engine” components (sails, rigging, mast…), as generally fabricated today.

    This might look a bit surprising, because most people tend to believe that sailboats have lower environmental impacts than equivalent motorboats, and because looking back at the days of commercial sailing ships, it seems obvious that, in the 1860′, a sailing cargo ship had a much lower environmental impact than the equivalent steamer cargo, including life-cycle environmental costs,

    So I guess that the point is that using the technologies developped for (competition) sailing boats in the last 50 or 80 years, (dacron cloth, stainless steel rigging, high tension shrouds and stays etc…) the high environmental production costs and limited life-time of wind-machine components tend to make corresponding sailing-boat environmentally ineficients. I guess other technologies could be developped, perhaps inspired from 1860′ practices which might give much better environmental results.

    Considering ease-of-use of sailboats vs mototboats, I understant that current sailboats are pretty much constrained to technical solutions tied to competition sailing-boats of the 1930′ to 2000′, with limited consideration for eease-of-use ou small crew, while motorboats use technical solution evolved from commercial trawlers ou tugboat, where ease of use has always bee a very serious issue.

    –> I guess that if we get more critic on mainstream sailboat technologies, it should be quite possible to build much easier to use and much more environmentaly friendly sail cruising boats, those boats could use much more elastic riggings, spars and sailcloth (to limit constrains, allowing weaker scantlings and longer equipment lifes….). Ease of use could be much improved using simpler halyards and sheets configuration with rugged mechanical assistance (hydraulics…) etc.

    Also, the sail cargo ships from the 1860′ generally didn’t have aux. engines, which looks somewhat unrealistic in 2013. Some of the last sail cargo ships from the 1900′ had aux. engine (like Prentout-Leblond “France 2″ of 1913…) but seem to have made a very limited use of them, so its looks like their environmental impact was not much higher than pure sailing ships and still much lower that equivalent motor cargo ships.

    Extrapolating figures from1860 or 1900 and taking some liberties with current sail-boat technologies (which might be beyond the scope of this forum….), it seems strange that sail-boat are supposed to be environmentally less-friendly than Dashew or equivalent motor-boats. I understand that in John’s long range cruising program, sail only average speed of a modern 40 ‘ or 50′ sail boat is not satisfactory, and motor-sailing or motoring does make a substancial part of the trips, but, if you consider some green energy harvesting during sail-only periods (solar panels, water-turbines, wind turbines….), it looks like such aux. sailboats should obtain substancially better environmental impacts than “adapted” motor boats (Dashew etc…). Of course this demands some radical reconsideration of current sailboat technologies (looking bak at the past ?…), and environmentaly well though aux prop. systems. It looks very obvious that first adopters of this kind of boats might have to pay some premiums for the pleasure of beeing first adopters. I guess that this has very often been the case, and I don’t think that this should be a very big problem, provided they understand this point.


  • George lewis October 3, 2013, 10:46 am

    Hi John: had a 55 ft alum sailboat with a 54 ft water line built in 1999 . With a displacement of 32,000 lb at a cost of under $300,000. Beam 14ft water line beam 11 ft. Draft 10 ft. Lifting keel to 6 ft 6 in. Does 200 miles days sailing . Four wt compartments aft cockpit with a fully enclosed pilot house. Keel weight 12,000 lb. it can be done!

    • John October 3, 2013, 11:19 am

      Hi George,

      Sounds like a cool boat. Do you have a link to any more information, I’m sure our readers would be interested.

  • scott flanders October 3, 2013, 1:10 pm

    John, I never mentioned a case for the N46, just that weight was your friend. For a long narrow boat to go quickly it has to have a flat bottom and be light. Its simply horsepower to weight.
    This mans it pounds to weather because to have a full keel it would be to bouyant. It may not pound like a canoe bottom race boat but it will pound.

    We have very little relatively high latitude North Atlantic experience. In fact, just this summer´s trip to Iceland via Greenland. However, we have spent some time in the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes and the long distances along the coasts guarantee weather, particularly in Argentina. Speed would be nice like everywhere but it still doesn´t help move between systems because there is no place to hide.

    However, except for that coast there are some myths that can be put to rest if you are on a smart recreationalschedule and not a schedule. For example: Hobart to Fremantle including Cape Leuwin, no spray on the pilothouse glass. Same for the trip from Richards Bay, SA to near Cape Town, same for Cape Town to Namibia, same for Namibia to St Helena and so on.

    We have on occasion pushed it up to 7.5 knots for a nmber of reasons even though the fuel burn went up. 7 3/4 knots is in the realm of folks who aren´t financially challenged.

    In any case, there isn´t any right or wrong. We are all different and in the end if we have fun and keep water out of the boat and the keel off the rocks its all good.


    • John October 3, 2013, 3:28 pm

      Hi Scott,

      I just wanted to make the point that I had taken your great advice about the N46 and the dangers of custom boats to heart.

      Still disagree with the concept that light boats must pound. For example, there are some very light and fast sailboats that don’t pound. The reason that a lot of lighter boats do pound is because designers try to get expansive interiors into very light boats and the only way to do that is make them wide, shallow and “U” shaped, but the fundamental problem is the amount of interior, not the lightness per se.

      Also, I have to disagree on speed. In my experience speed can make a great deal of difference in storm system avoidance and I’m not alone in that belief. Steve Dashew has written extensively and convincingly on the options for system avoidance that open up once you reach daily runs of 200+ miles a day. Of course, having said that, it is perfectly possible to make seamanlike and safe passages in slower boats. That’s why I agreed that speed is a want, not a need.

  • Rick Salsman October 4, 2013, 8:11 am

    Hi John:
    Another great piece! I sometimes think you are reading my mind. Your researched and well thought out articles on jacklines, miles per day issues and when or should we sailors go to power are concepts that seem to be occupying me and others lately. When Bonnie asks me why I might want a new to me boat, it fundamentally comes down to travelling further and faster in a day. The last Passage of the ARC by Steve Dashew in his FPB was a real eye opener to what is possible. Your search for something that will mirror those concepts at a more affordable price are keeping me glued to your screen! Keep up the great work, maybe if the stars align we can get a volume discount on the Artnautica series. :-) I will follow that build process closely. Thanks and Regards to you and Phyllis from Sicily

    • John October 4, 2013, 9:10 am

      Hi Rick,

      Thanks so much for the kind words, much appreciated. Hum, a cruise back from New Zealand in company would be fun. Enjoy italy and we will hope to see you both this winter.

  • Danny Blake October 4, 2013, 4:39 pm

    Hi John
    As you know I have been following Dennis’s progress with this great boat, when I emailed him a month back or so he spoke of a possibility that he may find a yard in the UK to build under licence, this would be a great help to me living in the channel Islands. I love watching this boat come together and all the details he is sharing with us all.

  • Annibale Orsi October 5, 2013, 7:53 am

    I finished the read…interesting. It makes me think of a boat I saw last year that made a lot of sense. One could buy today a 56 foot Fountaine Pajot (cat) in good shape for under $350,000. Then sell off all the sailing rig, i.e. mast, boom, all the sails, all the standing rigging, all the sheets, etc. That would reduce the weight considerably and any future expense. Now take the money that you made from selling the things you do not need or want and a little from the cookie jar and outfit the interior with anything that might be missing that you want. I’ll bet, that for a total price of about $400,000 you would have a near new boat that is light and fast. I would add extra water and fuel tanks; not a problem. Fact, my cat (46 foot) cruises on one motor (2,000RPM, 40HP) at 6 knots. The converted F&P would be a stable platform, not expensive, fast and very efficient. Just a thought because I saw one recently just this way. Any comments?

    • Annibale Orsi October 5, 2013, 8:00 am

      I forgot to mention that at 2,000RPM I am using less than 1.7 liters per hour.

  • John October 6, 2013, 8:21 am

    Hi Annibale,

    Now that’s an interesting and innovative idea. It would never work with a monohull sailboat because you would, unless you cut most of the keel off, end up with a boat that was over stable and very cranky when you removed the mast. But with a cat, your idea makes huge sense.

  • Nicolas October 6, 2013, 8:35 am

    Hi John,

    A frequently overlooked but essential factor in the design of production or even custom displacement offshore motorboats is propulsive efficiency. High propulsive efficiency is achieved through fixed pitch large diameter, slow turning props and that requires deep draft. CPP are less efficient given the same speed and diameter due to their large central hub creating excessive drag. CPP make sense in variable load condition such as when motor sailing, in tug boats, trawlers etc.

    My understanding is that motorboats should be designed from the propeller to the engine and then everything else added around them.

    There is great book about propellers by Dave Gerr ‘Propeller handbook’ giving empirical and mathematical methods of estimating propulsive efficiency. Also great articles for ocean voyaging motorboats technicalities in http://www.realtrawlers.com

    I have no affiliation or connection with them but in the recent past I have done a great deal of research on displacement boats, and their articles seem to be on-line with general accepted engineering calculations and methods as found in technical boat books.

    • John October 6, 2013, 12:59 pm

      Hi Nicolas,

      You are of course right that a fixed prop is potentially slightly more efficient than a CPP when the boat is used the majority of the time at a constant RPM that is close to full engine load. This is the case with many trawlers.

      But that is not the case with this boat. The reason for the CPP is that most of the time the boat will operate at around 7-8 knots, which will require only about 50% load on the engine. Without the CPP, in this state the engine would be chronically underloaded because the pitch would be set so that the engine could make full RPM at wide open throttle–very inefficient.

      This is not theory, but based on experience with our own boat over many years. In fact, after cruising for several hours at 8 knots with our Perkins at 1900 RPM, we have to run for 30 minutes at WOT just to stop the cylinders glazing. You can read more about this here.

      Also, because of this boats very high payload ratio the CPP will be very useful to fine tune the pitch as the boat lightens up as the fuel is burnt.

      In summary, for this boat that has a speed range from 7 knots to probably over 11, a CPP is exactly the right choice. For a trawler that is limited to 6-7 knots, not so much.

      BTW nothing in the above should be taken as me arguing with Gerr’s excellent book, I’m just applying his theory to the boat at hand.

      You can also read more about the advantages of CCPs here.

  • Annibale Orsi October 6, 2013, 9:48 am

    I was talking to my wife about the cat conversion for older sailor who wish to continue cruising without the work that goes into actual sailing. I said that if I was fifty again I would buy an older cat, fix it up, just like people do with older homes, and then cruise with it while having it up for sale. When it sells, do it again. Because older cat are still cheap, I will bet the one could do this and possibly make money. Just I though for you younger sailers who might wish to start cruising early in life.

  • Michel VAES November 28, 2013, 2:18 pm

    Back to your post October 2, 2013,
    A Sailor’s Motor Boat-Part 2, here some interesting designs

    http://www.brouns.fr/ ( and his Foxtrott 65, MagicTroll, EcoTroll 49, Foxtrott 45 )

  • Lukas December 7, 2013, 1:26 pm

    Would love to see your follow up of another approach.. at the end of the article. I’m convinced that a multihull is the ideal platform for a perfect sailors motorboat. I might be biased though as I trying to create just that myselff with our MP52- Trawler. Would love to get some feedback from John and the team. Like Dennis with the Artnautica 58, i put my money where my mouth is and took the build it and they will come approach. :) Being a sailor at heart, I’d like to think that I’m on the right track but it’s certainly a different approach than these long waterline length cruisers.
    Hope I’m not stirring the pot too much bringing a cat to a dog fight..:)
    More info is http://www.maltesecatamarans.com

  • Douglas Nelson August 4, 2014, 4:57 pm

    To add to the powercat discussion the most interesting design i’ve seen is that of Aspen http://www.aspenpowercatamarans.com/pages/graphs.html
    As the founder of Glacier Bay he found himself running his boats on one engine most of the time without much hit to speed….. so his new design is not a cat put a proa. Aspen’s are not really ocean yachts but I think this approach could prove to be the most efficient design yet.

  • Doug August 6, 2014, 11:30 pm

    George Buehler has designed a few boats which are efficient and avoid costly design.
    Cape Horn 102
    55’ IDLEWILD
    71′ Ellemaid
    57’ EGIS
    80’ 1” ELLEMAID


Leave a Comment

Please read our Comment Guidelines before you comment.
If your comment does not display immediately, please contact us
Your e-mail address will not be displayed and we will not send you junk mail.

Get your own avatar like ours.