|
COMMENTS - May to July 2007
For current comments, CLICK HERE
Response to the question about diesel cooktops: I do remember googling them, and then not buying one, but I believe it was because it was too late in the process, not because I didn't like them. I don't know about the odor. My guess is that there is some, but probably not that bad, and I would think that the benefits far outweigh the slight smell. That said, I wouldn't buy one without talking to someone who actually had one first. If they work, I think it would be awesome. - Ken W
Ken,
Did you ever consider a Diesel Cook stove and oven? They seem to be used on alot of PNW fishing boats and I was wondering if you inquired. They also heat hot water with a single or double coil. I was wondering if they made the boat smell like diesel?
You boat is looking wonderful. You were kind to lend your davit;) It certainly has great reach.
Good luck to you as you draw to a close
Scott
Comment by: Visitor (7/27/2007 5:08:03 PM) your adventures are already beginning and you are still a few days from getting ownership of the boat. egret just posted pictures from tierra del fuego. amazing! looking forward to more pictures and postings. i need to stop reading about others peoples trips and start sailing!
Comment by: Visitor (7/27/2007 7:17:15 AM) Hi Ken. The fun of learning all the systems has began. Over the next several months i am sure you will be studying your variuos manuals and taking notes of various items. As well there will be the enjoymentof playing with your electronics while underway, learning the features and capabilities of modern electronics. I would guess that years from now u will find a feature you were not aware of. Electronics have come so far in a short space of time it makes you immagine what they will be like in another few years.
It is unfortunate that the monitoring system has been left uncalibrated and hopefully it can be sorted out promptly for you I am sure it is a great system to have and that over time you will add even more sensors to it, but it appears to have been an ongoing problem thanks to LSE. Hopefully over time you will keep us ipdated on your thoughts on this system so comparisons can be made between it and other systems such as FT Navision.
I hope all is completed to your satisfaction before your departure.
John
Comment by: Visitor (7/25/2007 3:09:45 PM) Ken, received your kensblog via email test update.
Thanks, Joe
John: The Simon does compute fuel consumption, but it takes its' data from the computer attached to the engines, which is the same place I took my data.
I'm going to re-do all of the fuel calculations on Sunday, but this time I am going to log the load on the engines. All math indicates that the range should be better than I'm seeing. If the numbers don't change, I want to look at the props, to see if they are correct.
The Simon has very accurate measuring of fuel in the tanks. I will log the Simon info this time, to compare it to what the computers on the engine are saying. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/24/2007 9:14:16 PM) Hi Ken, just a thought but does the Simon monitoring system calculate fuel consumption? I would have thought it could calculate usage at a given time as well as an overall average.
John
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 11:42:21 PM) Jon: Asking what we would do differently is a fair question. I actually wrote a bunch on that just a couple weeks ago, but then when I tried to find my response, I couldn't. It's on here somewhere. I believe I said that the lazarette layout should have been done differently. It's too tight. There was also a lot of discussion about possibly simplifying the electrical system. I would consider dropping the hydraulic alternators, possibly the inverters, and add a third small generator. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 11:34:26 PM) Pat: I agree. Running a twin engine boat on one engine does not make it a single engine boat. The extra prop, and the hull shape, will create extra drag in the water. It should be in the 10-15% range, but it feels like my boat is performing worse than that (as compared to data I've seen from the N64). I did call Lugger today, and they said that the ECU data I was looking at should be accurate. I'll do another sea trial on Wednesday and see where we are after that. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 11:29:16 PM) Visitors: When posting a message, log in first, or at least sign your posting with your name. It makes it easier for me to respond.
To the person who posted the question about crossing the Hawaii with a single tank: That's the goal! In fact, it's the only option. There are no gas stations between SF and Hawaii. The boat has plenty of range. The only unknown is what speed I'll cross at. My preference is to go as fast as possible, but mileage goes down as speed goes up.
Someone yesterday swore to me that there is a tanker for refueling power boats out in middle of the Pacific. He said it as though he honestly believed it. I'm positive this is like the "mailbox in the middle of the Atlantic" and does not exist. I think someone was teasing him, or ... he was teasing me. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 8:21:04 PM) Ken,I looked at the latest pictures and the yacht looks great ! You had mentioned on your blog dated 7/21 that your first ocean crossing will be from San Francisco to Hawaii. From SF to Hawaii is about 2300nm, can your NH68 cruise with one full tank of gas ? Thanksst ocean crossing will be a run from San Francisco to Hawaii.
Ken- It is my understanding that a twin engine configuration can reduce efficiency (range) by up to 15 percent, however I do not believe you can get all of that percent back by running on one engine. The reason would be the increased drag caused by a non feathered propeller, increased rudder offset, and hull angle. Also when crossing the gulf stream, you do have a offset heading to achieve a specified course (crab.) The rudder would actually be aligned most of the time. Ted’s comments are accurate in that the propeller pitch and size will have the most effect on your efficiency, along with speed. I would also check with Lugger to see if you can expect an increase in efficiency as you engines obtain a few more hours on them.
Secondly it is really a beautiful ship. Robert, you and Nordhavn have done a great job.
Pat
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 12:00:26 PM) this maybe an inappropriate question to ask at this time since you are days away from smashing a champagne bottle against the boats side but is there anything you'd do differently looking back at it now? this question maybe better asked in a few months time and i'll respect that.
jon
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 10:40:49 AM) Response to the person who asked about running a twin-engine boat over a long distance with a single engine: The honest answer is "I don't know." I do know that it is fairly commonly done to extend range. You need to lock down the unused shaft or you can burn up the transmission. As to the extra drag on the steering, I don't know. I would think there would be, but there is always extreme strain on the steering, so a little more may not make a difference. It would be like crossing the gulf stream, where you always need a little rudder to go straight. Perhaps others have a better answer to this question. (which I'm as curious about as you are!) - Ken W
Regarding the fuel consumption I think that the propellors are not matched to the boat and engine characteristics. Using the pitch and gear ratio from your propellor table and the speeds you are getting at 1200 and 1500 rpm, I have calculated that the slip is about 36%. This would be appropriate for a high speed craft, slow boats should be in the 12 to 15% range.
Ted
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 10:22:58 AM) Scott: I emailed Bob Senter at Lugger to get his opinion on the accuracy of the ECU data. I'm also planning to do the testing again later this week, and use the site gauge on the day tank for my calculatioins (although I'm also not certain about its' calibration).
The ultimate test will come in about 10 days, on our run up the coast. It will be a long enough run that I'll have no trouble computing the real numbers. My current plan is to run fast -- 9.5 or 10 knots. If fuel looks tight, I'll stop somewhere and take on more.
On Saturday, I watched a new 76, Capricorn, leave the marina headed up the coast. It was cool seeing the new owners taking delivery! My turn will come. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 10:12:38 AM) i'm surprised you can run a twin engined boat as a single over long distances, i thought using a single engine was only for redundancy, wouldn't you always have to be steering the boat to correct its course and therefore putting the steering hydraulics under a constant force?
Ken,
Your ship has indeed come in. Please tell Roberta her work and attention to the interior design was well worth all the work. She is beautiful.
As to the fuel consumption. I would be more suspect of the data collection given the varibility across engines. Not sure how data was calculated or gathered, but clearly over a short run, small data collection errors will compound into big mistakes in assumptions. I had fuel consumption "fuel flow" guages on my airplane and they certainly had to be calibrated. There seems to be quite a difference across engines...as much as 20% difference so I would be interested in Nordhavn's input on this
Kind regards
Scott
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 2:39:18 AM) Thanks for the reply Ken. In the overall scheem of things i dont think it would matter how often you changed engines, it would be more to do with balancing the hours run on the individual engines in my view.
Please keep us updated on this subject.
John.
Comment by: Visitor (7/23/2007 2:09:41 AM) Jon and John:
With respect to the range on the diesel electric boat: David Fulton is a friend, and I can't really comment on his range. It would be inappropriate. My sense is that he will talk about his boat at some point, but I'm not sure when. For right now, I think he is just focused on enjoying the cruising.
As to making long passages on my boat with a single engine: I agree! I have tons of arguments as to why the dual engines should be more efficient, but deep down, I still feel that single engine will give greater range. That's why I was doing the testing. Even my Nordhavn project manager seemed excited by the results. He and I had a great discussion on how to "lock down" the shaft on the unused engine, so that I wouldn't burn out the transmission. I'm going to do more testing, and hope to give a definitive answer, but the preliminary results do seem to indicate that running single engine gives the greater range. I don't think I'd swap engines every few hours. My guess is that I'd want to make the change every couple of days, although I couldn't defend why this would be better. I'll report here as I learn more.
I don't think we'll have time for a sea trial tomorrow. The soft goods guy (mattresses, bimini tops, drapes, cushions, etc) will be on the boat all day.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 11:15:11 PM) If they are real world figures for the 76 it could be worthwhile considering the diesel electric option. After several years you should recoup the cost in fuel savings. It would also be a great assistance when cruising remote locations....eg. Sth America/Cape Horn.
John
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 10:46:32 PM) those figures make the diesel electric N76 look quite impressive, at 7 kn its says a 8200 mile range, i wonder how close the real world figures are. i hope mr. fulton posts figures for the boat at some point.
jon
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 10:00:46 PM) I fully understand they are only preliminary findings & that the actual real world figures should be very different. However it is a subject of interest to those of us who would like to follow you 1 day in aquiering our own passgemaker, & helping us to understand the pros & cons of single V twin engines. Personally i like the idea of twins for redundancy, but would more than likely treat the boat as a single on most passages. Thankyou.
John
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 9:23:52 PM) John: I probably shouldn't have posted the findings. At this point, they are so preliminary as to be somewhat useless. The GPH numbers were taken from the little monitors that directly monitor the engines (it's a standard called "canbus"). I do not know how accurate this data is. It feels like the range numbers should be at least 25% higher. I routed the same stats to the senior management at Nordhavn. I will not be surprised (but, I will be delighted) if it turns out that checking the fuel consumption rate using this technique is inaccurate. I know that on the Atlantic rally, the instruments were telling me I was consuming 12 GPH, but that when I actually measured the fuel in the day tank, the consumption was only 8 GPH. I'll speak with Lugger directly tomorrow, and will ask them about the accuracy of the data. -Ken W
PS I doubt I'll need this, but as a backup plan, I had a thought today: I have two anchor lockers, each of which is the size of a small bedroom. I've never actually seen a fuel bladder, but I'd bet I could easily fit another 500+ gallons on board in the chain locker, if I really wanted.
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 8:02:41 PM) Hi Ken, the preliminary results on fuel consumption are a little disappointing. If you add to that around 1 gallon per hour for generator use, plus the effect of sea conditions & currents, your maximum range will come in under 3,000nm. That is if you treat it as a single engine boat alternating engines every several hours, which would appear to be a valid option. It will be interesting to see the results on this subject after a few passages when you have even more wieght on board.
Please keep us posted.
John
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 1:12:39 PM) Ken, just seen the pictures. Saloon looks very impressive indeed and so much bigger than the 62. The dog looks happy too. I'll be interested to hear how you anchor the loose furniture to the floor as this is a direction I'd like to take. Regards, Gavin
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 12:43:52 PM) those numbers seem to be way off from lugger's (my math maybe wrong!) at 1400 rpm the fuel burn they say is around 7.5 gal/h. 3200 X 15 x 10.6 x 1.151 = 2602 miles.
jon
I'm just heading to the boat. I forgot and left my notes, with all of the fuel usage calculations, on board the boat. I don't want to give bad information, and actually, even if I had my notes, I don't know how accurate the information coming from the engine gauges is. I'll collect my notes and post the information later today (or, tonight). My benchmark is a 3,000 mile passage, and what speed I'd have to run. The good news is that I can make it, but the bad news is that I'll have to run around 6.5 to 7 knots. Based on what I was seeing yesterday, which as I said may or may not be accurate, it appears that the range at 9 knots will be around 1,800 miles. This certainly isn't bad, but I had hoped for more. I also did some fun experimenting to see the range running on a single engine. I still haven't done the math, but my back of the envelope calculations indicate that this is an idea worth exploring. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 3:04:53 AM) Ken, I know it is not yet finished, but we are starting to get an idea of how it will look. It will be beautiful, no doubt about it.
10.6 knots @ 1400rpm.....that would just about be your long range cruising RPM, i think above expectations. Looking forward to continued updates.
John.
Comment by: Visitor (7/22/2007 1:32:49 AM) Ken, your wife looks very pleased with the boat, as I'm sure you are. Thanks for allowing us to share in your journey. Congratulations, the boat looks awesome!
Ken,
Looks like you had a great day on the boat! Can't wait to see the photo's and look forward to your next post.
Jim
The end is in sight, I know you must be getting excited but so are we. Your site is a must read every day......just waiting for the pictures of the finished boat and start of the sea trial. Geat site, great boat.
Comment by: Visitor (7/18/2007 9:23:29 PM) Ken, i would like to second jon's comment, after 2 1/2 years there is finally light at the end of the tunnel. No doubt you have had many sleepless nights, along with lots of headaches along the way, but i'm sure all that will be forgotten after your first trip. A great site & i too look forward to continued updates and pictures of the finished product. Safe cruising to both of you.
John
Thank you Jon. You can't imagine how much we're looking forward to seeing the boat without all the cardboard. I was looking at some old pictures of the boat, and realized that it has actually looked worse with each visit. I predicted this, knowing all the cardboard was going on and the ceilings coming down -- but, it is still depressing. It will be SO good to see it looking good again. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/18/2007 8:26:25 PM) congratulations on finally seeing the end and getting aboard your new boat ken. enjoy. thank you for creating such a website, its been both fascinating and inspirational. look forward to the updates via email.
jon
Ken,
You may have thought of this already, but it is a good idea to have a pair of heat resistant gloves. I am not sure what they are made of but they are available everywhere and they make small repairs on HOT engines much safer.
you're getting close...good luck
Scott
Jared: Thanks for the feedback. We were hoping to avoid the high winds by waiting as late in the season as possible to head south. The cruising guides say the winds drop by April. Unfortunately, our schedule is now being set by Yachtpath, who has a freighter coming North in late March, thus we'll be in the bay of tehuantepec (or, whatever it is called) in February -- when it can be no fun at all. Several people have told me that if I run "with one foot on the beach" I should be ok. I hope they are right. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/17/2007 3:30:23 PM) Good afternoon Ken,
Enjoying your entries as always. I cruised CR for a year and a half straight.We ran the entire coast more than a dozen times. Take the time to explore each location and do your research as it is much easier to cruise than the charts/guide books lead you to believe or you might miss out on many incredible anchorages/locations. Most importantly, the wildlife & the Northern country before the Papagayo winds pick up.
Good Luck,
Jared.
charisma130@aol.com
Comment by: Visitor (7/17/2007 2:25:27 PM) interesting, its easy to see how they extended the 72 into the 76, didn't realize they did this with other models. i suppose from a cost point of view it makes perfect sense for the company. hopefully someone asks for a standard pilothouse 86. there was one picture that i saw of the 72 that made me fall in love with its look.
bought the latest passagemaker magazine this morning, just finished reading the haulout disaster article. made me shudder thinking he and others were under the boat when it dropped, lucky it didn't fall over.
jon
Jon: With respect to ballasting the boat - I don't know. Nordhavn already ballasted the boat in Taiwan, and unless there are surprises when they add fuel I don't think anything else will happen with respect to ballast. The quantity, location and weight, of the fuel is predictable. Nordhavn has been doing this long enough that they know how many inches the boat will come down for each thousand pounds of added weight. There may be some small amount of ballast they will add or subtract, or shuffle around, but I really don't think so. The boat was sitting high in the water, but where expected, when I saw it last. My guess is that it will look exactly this same way (bobbing like a cork in the water) when we pull into Hawaii, with the tanks virtually empty.
As to tank testing - I am fairly certain my boat was not tank tested. I do believe the 64 was tank tested, and the 68 is an extension to the hull used for the 64. Nordhavn has a bit of a history of extending boats. Almost all 62s were extended by six feet or so (the "bustle" as Nordhavn calls it). The 72 was similarly extended to become the 76, and now the 64 has grown into the 68. I doubt any of these extensions were tank tested. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/17/2007 10:11:51 AM) do they add ballast this late in the commissioning to level out the boat? concerning the lifting are you given the weight of the boat by nordhavn or an estimation. i assume the boat is tank tested at a certain dry weight then tested with varying tank levels: fuel, water ...
jon
Jon: Great googling!!!! For others who go to the link below - I was confused at first, and didn't see the report on the ship, but if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, it is there.
There's also an interesting thread on yachtforum talking about these pictures: http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/general-yachting-discussion/7055-splash.html
After reading all of this, I'm still convinced this is a fake -- but, I'm far less certain than I was.
-Ken W Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 11:07:49 PM) heres a link to the incident in question.
http://www.cargolaw.com/2007nightmare_marquis.ride.html
jon
Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 9:02:34 PM) Hi Ken, I'm with you, I think the photos are fake. The tricks they can do with pictures these days. there was no news story to my knowledge about the incident and i have to ask what the chances would be of a perfect perpendicular fall....very remote i suspect.
John
I just received via email, from Jon F, the photos I referred to of a boat being dropped by a lift .
This LOOKS real -- but, I still don't believe it is. I would think that if this really occured, there'd be a news story about it somewhere. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 7:15:39 PM) i sent copies of the lifting accident to your email address. my first reaction to the pics were they had to be fake but looking closely you can actually see the storage coverings coming off which would be hard to do as well they would have to take a picture of the yacht overhead at the correct height. if they are real that poor lad on the back must be seeing his life pass before his eyes.
I saw that series of pictures. I started to post a link to them but couldn't find them again. I know they are on Yachtforums somewhere. I suspect the pictures are phony, but still a great sequence. Although, perhaps they are real. I hope not... Passagemaker has an artical this month about a 47 that was destroyed by a lift.
As to the mid pilot house 76 -- yes. I was on that boat in Taiwan. The owner was there and gave me a tour. It's the best laid out Nordhavn I've been on. There's a walkway down the center of the boat that is perfect for maintenance. You have amazing access to everything. I've never seen this mentioned, but it was very impressive.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 4:30:15 PM) somewhat off topic, have you seen or been on the standard pilothouse arrangement 76 not the aft version. nordhavn hasn't mentioned this model on their website at all except for 3 photos, i think the yachts name is the spirit of ulysses. curious about this model, my favorite looking nordhavn was the original 72 and now its profile is enhanced with the extra length at the back.
on the topic of lifting i was sent 3 sequential pics of a large yacht being lifted into the water when the straps snapped. the 2nd picture shows the captain or deckhand holding on for dear life on the transom as the boat enters the water vertically, the next shows 2 people in the water and the boat upside down, lucky no one was killed, the yacht must have been 70 or so feet long. better safe than sorry!
To the person who asked how my boat was lifted off the freighter: There are lots of different sizes of lifts. For many lifts my boat would be considered feather light, and for others it's impossibly heavy. When my boat arrived at San Diego it was taken off the deck of a freighter by a giant lift. Much larger boats than mine get shipped every day. Unfortunately though, the largest lift at the Newport Shipyard, where my boat was planned for haul out, is only 100 tons. My boat is approximately 100 tons, so perhaps it could have been lifted, but it would have been close to the limit. The lift operator made the call that he'd rather not take a chance. It's not a big deal, other than it will be inconvenient to have to take the boat to an alternate shipyard. My guess is that I'll face this same problem often over the years as the boat needs hauled out for one reason or another.
Actually - this raises another issue which I need to focus on, on Monday. A friend has a N76 and is going on the Fubar. His boat is currently in the Pacific NW. I mentioned to him that he should try to put his boat on the same freighter as mine, in October, to travel south to San Diego for the start of the Fubar. This was a month ago, and I had forgotten the conversation, but he said "I tried, and Yachtpath said there wasn't a crane in Victoria large enough to load my boat onto the freighter." Argh. I may have the same problem, and I've already paid them. Once again, it isn't a huge deal, in that I paid a bunch of money and I'd get that back. A delivery crew will be cheaper and easier. I'm not sure why I didn't go that route in the first place. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 12:05:19 PM) how did they lift the boat into the water when it arrived?
I was incorrect in saying the tanks had been filled. The monitoring system showed the tanks as full, but hadn't yet been calibrated.
They are supposed to fuel the boat today, but I'm betting they don't do it. My guess is that they'll want the boat as light as possible until after it has been hauled out.
I hope it works out that I am there when the boat is out of the water. I'd like one more opportunity to look at everything on the bottom; zincs, stabilizers, through-hulls, thrusters etc. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/15/2007 6:26:30 AM) Hi Ken, i think i remember you saying that they had filled the fuel tanks to assist the technicians installing the monitoring system to calibrate the tank readings. Conservitally, that would be around 21,000lbs of fuel and could be the difference between a 100 ton lift doing the job or not. Could be worth looking into.
John H
Ken,
I was told by an engineer at the Travel Lift company that the clubs 25 ton lift would lift my 22 ton boat with no problem. Also he stated that it couldn't hurt the lift as it is hydraulic and would just relieve the oil back into the tank.
He also said that they under rate them.
Better safe than sorry.
Bill Kelleher
Hi Ken,
Just got to your blogg after a couple of days and noticed that you have been talking with Craig or Rocna. I agree with spending some time on anchor choice as in my view this is the best insurance. I happen to live aboard just two boats down from Peter the designer and have had some interesting discussions before choosing a 70Kg for my boat. I replaced a 75Kg plough and have nothing but praise and confidence in the Rocna for holding power and speed of setting. I have a high windage 3 deck steel custom trawler that displaces around 60 tons so in current "liveaboad/cruising" mode is somewhat up on that. I was only talking with Peter yesterday about the stainless Rocnor as well as a demountable he is designing - the stainless looked fantstic, maybe for my Nordhavn I hope to order early next year!!
There was an article in Passagemaker last year where they took a rifle and tried to fire holes into a Nordhavn hull. The focus of the article was on running from a pirate attack. If I'm remembering this correctly, they had a small piece of hull from a Nordhavn 46 that they used for testing. Virtually none of the bullets made it through and the hull did not fracture (or, at least this is my memory. Perhaps someone reading this has a clearer recollection of the article). My belief is that these hulls are quite strong.
That said, the Titanic had a steel hull, which is stronger, and was sunk by an iceberg.
I haven't spoken with either Larry Biggs (Nexus) or Buddy Bethea (Always Friday) about their adventures in the ice, although I expect to see both in the next month. My guess is that there are fairly well defined places you can pick your way through, at slow speed, and be relatively safe. This makes for great pictures, and I can see us doing something similar, after a bit of arm twisting by Roberta. Buddy's adventure with the glacier splitting is in a different category. If you are too close to a Glacier when it breaks apart, you are going to have a really bad day. Has he said, had he been in a smaller boat, or hadn't gotten his nose into the approaching wave, it may not have gone as well.
Our new 68 has sonar. I assume that the sonar will warn me about ice underwater, but do not know. I'll also have the thermal imaging camera, which will allow me to see ice in the water, even when it is transparent. I also have a healthy respect for the ice, and am likely to give it a wider berth than many boaters.
Overall... I'm a warm water boater. This excursion to Alaska is likely to be the only time the heaters on the boat get used. It will be great, but unlike many of the boaters I know, I doubt we're the type that will go back year after year. Bahamas anytime, Alaska once -- or, that's what I'm thinking today. I haven't been there yet, other than on a cruise ship. I may fall in love.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/13/2007 10:45:40 AM) just saw your posting from alwaysfriday in alaska. you posted a report from a smaller nordhavn making its way through ice near a glacier a week or so ago and you seemed apprehensive and roberta excited to do the same. this would be my point of terror, being in an ice flow with sizeable pieces of ice and a huge slab of glacier dropping off and causing a wave! just how strong is the hull if a large piece of ice slams into it from a wave travelling god knows how fast?
Comment by: Visitor (7/13/2007 1:17:47 AM) Hi Ken, I was very surprised to see that you answered the question regarding the cost of all the extras on your boat and even more surprised to see that it was a lot less than i had guessed. 1.2m US, i would have thought that your electronics package alone would have taken up 1/2 that amount, and with the pain caused by the Larry Smith debarcle possibly adding more to that. Then there are the Internal alterations, tenders, safety equioment, second engine.....the list goes on. Adding the figures for the base boat + extras i think you finished up with a good deal and i hope that you & Roberta have many years of safe and enjoyable cruising ahead of you. Barry S.
Comment by: Visitor (7/13/2007 12:42:25 AM) Ken, the US vector charts (S-57 format) are freely downloadable on the NOAA website as are the raster charts.
John
Pat: You are right of course -- I should run both raster, and vector charts, and plan to do so, at least while in North America. The coast guard charts for the US are free, in raster format (and, perhaps vector format, I forget).
Here's what I'm thinking.... My plan is to buy the vector charts for the whole world. I am required to have the vector charts, because I have Navnet, in addition to Maxsea, and the Fly Bridge runs strictly off of Navnet. I'm sure I confused 99% of everyone with that statement, so I'll say it again slower. Furuno has their own chart plotting system, called Navnet, which runs on a dedicated platform (something that isn't a computer, or at least isn't sold as a general purpose computer). They call this system "Navnet" and normally you see it running on smaller boats. More recently, Furuno acquired Maxsea, which is a charting package used more in larger boats, and that runs on a normal PC. My boat has both on board, and Maxsea has been updated to talk to Navnet. Navnet runs ONLY vector charts. Thus, even if you get Navnet and Maxsea speaking with each other, unless you have vector charts, they quickly run out of something to talk about. Thus, the requirement for vector charts. I can display Navnet in either the Fly Bridge or the Pilot House. My current plan is to have Maxsea going, with Raster Charts, along side Navnet, running the vector chart. That said, plans and reality can differ. I've never actually done any of this. Well, actually... I have run Maxsea, in both Vector and Raster mode, and I have run Navnet .. but, never at the same time, and never on my boat. I'm not at all certain how everything has been cabled up, and I don't know what is possible. Ask me again in a couple weeks... - Ken W
Ken- In April, you mentioned that you found that Maxsea could only run either raster or vector charts simultaneously. Did you ever get that problem resolved? I prefer running in vector, just because you can declutter, etc., however I always have a raster presentation next to the vector when in areas of concern. Where you are boating this summer, I have noted a few discrepancies between the two sets of charts (west side of Vancouver Island.) With your bank of computers you might be able to run both, by using two programs. Thanks again for your website. - Pat
I have a few questions today, so I'll gang the responses -
Air conditioning: I added the manuals to the a/c system to the Manuals page on this site. The quick answer is that "yes" the air is recirculated in each cabin. Fresh air is not used. The lazarette has a "chiller" that is constantly cooling a loop of water which runs throughout the boat. In each cabin, there is an air handler which is nothing more than a good old fashioned radiator and a fan. Air is blown across the radiator, which is full of cold (or, hot) water, and the cabin gets chilled (or heated).
Night Vision: Yes - it does look like Star Wars! It's much larger than it looks in the pictures. I wanted it mounted on the radar arch, with a 360 view of the world, but we were out of space. Darn.
Price of all the extras: You don't want to hear the answer to this question. Roberta and I went over the top. There are a lot of extras on this boat: chilled water a/c, custom interior, dual engines, hot tub, monitoring system, night vision, sonar, dual water makers, diesel furnace, custom made furniture, exterior teak decks everywhere, jet tender, 1,000 dvd jukebow, underwater lights, wine cooler, 14kw of inverter, an expresso machine (of course) and, more! I don't know the complete total yet, but it will be $1.2 or more in "extras". Personally, I do not believe that this is needed, or a wise investment. Our 62 was essentially a "stock" boat, and we loved it. Our justification is that for most of the years we had the 62 I was still working. The 62 was only used seasonally. Our 68 will be our home for at least half the year, and perhaps much more. There are designer touches, and creature comforts, that one does for your home, that you wouldn't do for "a boat". As we work our way around the world, we are going to be in fairly hostile environments much of the time. In the South Pacific, it might be months between when we dine at a restaurant with a great wine list. Actually, if you compare the total price of the boat, to what one might pay for a water front home in Hawaii, one can argue the boat is less expensive, and even more water front... (plus, unlike a home in Hawaii that is stuck in one place, we can hang out there until bored, then move to Tahiti, until bored, then move to Sydney until bored, etc.)
As to a bulbous bow: I have never had a straight answer from Nordhavn on the bulbous bow topic. Our 62 had one, and it was a great boat. Speed on a full displacement boat is directly related to waterline length. The bulbous bow gives more length at the waterline, and seemed to help with the pounding in heavy seas. I was disappointed with the lack of a bulbous bow, but I'm not a naval engineer, so perhaps it is better without. I don't know.
Thank you! - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/12/2007 3:56:34 PM) on the subject of air intakes do you draw in fresh air when you use the heating or air conditioning or do they recycle the air?
Comment by: Visitor (7/12/2007 3:44:29 PM) Hi Ken,
The night vision camera looks really cool - almost like something from a sci-fi film!
It looks like it cannot be turned towards the stern. Are you happy with this, or was it the only place to put it?
Another somewhat touchy question; I was told by Nordhavn that the base price for the N68 is around 2,9 MUSD - could you give us an idea of how much all the extras you've put in will cost you?
Regards,
BJ
Oslo -Norway
Ken,
What are your thoughts on having a bulbous bow ? Pros/cons worth the cost etc..
Thanks, Jim
"...where is the engine room air intake? ..."
Good question. On my boat, there are two exhaust fans, and one intake. I believe the air intake is on the exterior port side of the salon. The exhaust fans vent in the cockpit, on the back of the main salon, above the lockers on the port and starboard sides.
There is also an exhaust vent for the lazarette, and I have forgotten where it is. I think it vents to the same place as the port-side engine room exhaust fan.
There is certainly the possibility for sea water to come in through the exhaust during extreme seas.
Personally, I'm not a fan of extreme seas, and attempt to avoid them whenever possible. In more than eight years on our 62, I never had water enter the engine room via the vents. However, on our small 27' Glacier Bay power cat, I did accidentally get into bigger seas than it could take, and took a fair amount of sea water into the electrical compartment of the boat, and fried the air conditioning pump, plus various electrical wiring. The only message here is that once you are used to a Nordhavn, your perception of "what is scary" changes. There were many times last summer, when running on the Glacier Bay through the Bahamas, when perhaps we were a bit more aggressive than we should have been. Nordhavns spoil you.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/10/2007 6:46:36 AM) i took this from the med bound log:
Someone on the radio today pointed out that it's not a question of whether a boat will leak in such conditions but when and where. Esther and Dennis have taken a sailboat across the Pacific, and they have a saying. "The water always wins!" Aboard Bluewater we took a little water through our big portside vent, with the water finding its way into the master stateroom overhead--first time ever! In spite of securely taping our lazarette, we discovered a small nuisance leak through the tape into the lazarette and cannot figure out how the water's getting in. Chris reports lazarette leaks over her inverter control panel; she was investigating that late last night when Moana Kuewa took a gusher-about five gallons came cascading down the engine room air intake.
water in the lazarette i have heard of but not the engine room. where is the engine room air intake? i thought air was drawn down from the mast, where the dry exhaust is.
Comment by: Visitor (7/10/2007 3:31:08 AM) Hi Ken, unfortunately Australia has some crazy regulations that i dont understand (and i am an Aussie). To me what you have said is absolutely rediculous & crazy. With regulations like this i guess you will be by-passing some great cruising areas, and to me that will be our loss. How many cruisers would by-pass our country due to these crazy regulations? I can only appologise to you on behalf of all Aussies.
John H.
Gary: Do I have a dog? Does United Airlines have any airplanes? Roberta and I are the owners of, or are owned by (depending on who you ask) a small Norwegian Lundehund, named "Shelby". Shelby has racked up more than 10,000 sea miles, and many times more air miles.
Roberta knows far more about how we house trained Shelby than I do. I don't remember it being too horrible. We did it in phases; step 1 was to create a lawn on the cockpit of the boat. We did this with a huge tray, filled with dirt and sod. The dogs thought of it as their back yard (at the time we had two dogs). After a while we let the grass go brown, and then removed the dirt, and ultimately removed the tray. Once the dogs got a sense of where the bathroom was, it was never a problem again.
Our current problem is not as easily handled. We're planning on circumnavigating, and not all countries welcome dogs with open arms. I had a wild conversation with Australia. They won't even let us pull up to the dock. I have to be anchored off shore, and fueled offshore. Shelby can not come ashore unless she submits to a six month quarantine -- and, I have to pay an inspector to check the boat each day, to verify we haven't snuck her ashore. Ouch! - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/9/2007 10:27:44 PM) Hey Ken,
I am unsure as to whether or not you have a dog but I don't know any better place to ask this. What do the other Nordhavn owners who have dogs on board with them do when they are at sea for days or weeks at a time where there isn't land for the dog to use the restroom. I see all these photos from other owners sites and they have dogs running around but am perplexed as to how they cope with this unique problem. I know its kind of a weird thing to be wondering but it does seem to be a valid problem.
Thanks for your time,
Gary
Visitor (who spoke about the Rocna anchor):
Thank you for the feedback. I have been in contact with both Rocna and their distributer in Vancouver. Unfortunately, they don't have an anchor of the size I need in stock, and I'm not much on patience. At this point, I just want to get cruising. We are headed towards Vancouver, so I might arrange to stop in and swap my CQR for the Rocna. If this can be made fast and easy I'll do it for sure. One way or the other I'll swap to the Rocna sometime this season. For here in the Pacific NW, the CQR wil be fine, but we're headed to Costa Rica this winter, and I want to get the swap made before we head south. - Ken W
Bob: (in response to your question about fuel tank usage)
I don't have a sense yet of how sensitive the boat will be to fuel. On my 62, moving fuel between the tanks made a huge difference. I usually transferred fuel to level out the boat as needed. For instance, the boat would tend to lean when I had the tender being pulled (it normally rested on the port side), thus I'd move fuel to the port side to get back level.
Nordhavn mentioned that the bow tank sits lower in the boat than the two engine room tanks, thus I need to keep it shut off or the engine room tanks will gravity feed into it. My normal operation will be to feed off the two engine room tanks, into the day tank, and transfer from the bow tanks to the engine room tanks according to how the boat is riding.
I suppose I should know whether I want the bow light or heavy when in rough seas, but I can't know you off the top of my head. It seems like I'd like it light, but I could have that backwards. Ask me again a couple weeks after I take delivery. Our first ride will be the west coast beating our way north. I'm sure I'll have an opinion before arriving in Seattle.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/9/2007 1:41:57 AM) Hi Ken,
I noticed you had the Rocna anchor on your site. I have a 70KG Rocna on my custom 60 foot trawler, Hobo. I find it fantastic, two issues I had to learn to anchor again as it seems to set instantly so no dragging back into position undr power and the washdown gets a workout when retrieving as it does hang on to quite a bit of seabed. Still a small price to pay for a good nights sleep and no dragging even on a windy night in Aucklands worst anchorage - very soft mud where dragging is the norm.
Comment by: Visitor (7/8/2007 6:04:55 PM) Ken,
Thanks for sharing your new boat adn most importantly your time. My question is what change to you expect to see in larger seas as you empty the forwrd fuel tank? Any strategy for how you will burn from the three tanks when facing less than pleasent seas?
All the best in your adventures.
Bob
Oslo-Norway: Thank you for the feedback on the boat...
Yes. I' heard about the 76 that t-boned the freighter . It was the subject of litigation, which I understand has now resolved, but I am not sure what I can and can't say (or, should or shouldn't say).
I have not heard that there was a equipment malfunction, which implies human error. But, that said, heavy fog is involved, and things can sometimes seem simpler standing on dry land, than they are out at sea. Without knowing all the details I'd hesitate to speculate as to whether it was the Nordhavn or the freighter that made the mistake.
The N76 in question is Aurora. I was aboard it recently, and it has been fully restored. It was new at the time of the accident and the buyer used the opportunity to trade up to a larger Nordhavn (the 86). There was quite a bit of damage, but nothing structural as far as I know. In the pictures I saw, the bow pulpit was bent, and there were some scrapes, but the boat was still running fine, and there was no seawater intrusion. I would think it would represent a good opportunity for someone seeking a 76 who wants to save time and money.
It's a major endorsement of the 76, and Nordhavn, that it could have survived t-boning a freighter with so little damage. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/6/2007 4:41:47 PM) Hi Ken,
I've just come back to my native Norway after having been in Dana Point to see your boat. Although a bit chaotic with all the work going on she's a real beauty!
Since you seem to be very safety conscious (and you live in Seattle) I would like to ask if you know what happened to the N76 currently for sale in Seattle that collided with a freighter.
Was there any kind of equipment malfunction, or simply human error, and, if so, human error onboard the N76 or the freighter?
Do you also know the extent of the damage?
Good luck with the finishing touches from Oslo - Norway!
jc: we did talk about back lighting the name on the back of the boat, and had planned to do it. Actually, our plan was to do steel raised backlit letters, on the sides of the boat, with steel flush-mounted non-backlit letters on the stern. We just changed this to go with a painted logo. We decided that it's a lot of work, and money, to do the raised lettering, and then it's a lot more work to keep them looking nice. I looked at several other recent boats with painted logos, and decided they looked just fine. There are apparently multiple ways to paint a logo, some of which work, and some of which don't. We are going with the best technique, which I've already forgotten what is - some sort of spray painting, and I met the artist this weekend.
As to the Brownie Hookah: What we are getting is similar to your floating version. Ours is electric, and yours is gas. I thought about the floating system, and possibly should have got it. I was worried that it would take in water, and be ruined. The whole concept of having the compressor floating on a tube sounded flawed -- but, I'm happy to hear it works in actual usage! There is a third option, which is to have the air compressor installed (or temporarily installed) on a tender. This is probably the best of all options. There will be some great diving I'll miss because I can't get my big boat close enough to a wall. I will have tanks on board for these occasions - but, the hookah makes diving so much easier. I am definitely hoping I can get Roberta excited about the hookah. I did have her diving with it in the pool, at our home in Cabo. She had fun, but became bored quickly. The next step is to convince her to try it in the ocean. Now that the ice has been broken, that should be easy.
Enjoy your 2008 Alaska cruise! There's a good chance you will see us! - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/4/2007 10:08:26 AM) Ken,
It seems a trend on the new yachts coming out to have the vessel name lighted on the stern. ie. N6401, N6402. Are you planning something similiar? The company that lettered ours used a reflective material on the stern and simple vinyl (or similar) on the sides. Also had a question about your Brownie system, is it similiar to their portable version? I have one with the gas engine and on a float that supports 3 adults to 60 or 70 ft. The total hose length is about 100 ft. I never have issues with it becoming tangled, although everyone who uses it is certified. The hassle is which way are we deciding to go! I imagine you and Roberta will never use it together while alone anchored. Love your site and information. I also will be in Alaska in the Summer of 08....with Celebrity Cruises! Pleeeeease post the pictures of your voyage.
jc
To the person asking the latest update on the boat --- see here . - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/3/2007 11:23:05 PM) Ken, i am with you in regard to punching through the ice, i never know what damage could be done to the hull.
What is the latest news with the boat....is it still on track for mid July completion?
Scott Cole, the designer on our boat, was just in Monaco to receive his award. Apparently it was a huge event. The press release can be found here . The category was for best design up to 45 meters, which includes yachts to 140 feet! Thus it was very unusual for a boat of only 80 feet to take the award. Links to more pictures of Julianne can be found here . I told Scott that now I expect an award! -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (7/2/2007 6:13:55 AM) if you or anyone is interested the yacht julianne (northern marine) with interior designed by scott cole is nominated for a superyacht society award. i believe you used this interior as inspiration for yours.
Comment by: Visitor (7/1/2007 5:30:43 AM) Ken, thankyou for the frank reply. I did think the Davit looked out of place in the picture. As to the 15' AB Tender, it did appear a little large when looking at the room remaining around the port side anchor hardware. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and maybe a 13' could have been considered, but a hard choice as the bigger the tender, the better to handle rougher conditions.
I would have thought Nordhavn would have done enough dual anchor set ups on the 72 & 76 (both built at the same factory as your 68) to know how to size the Pulpit correctly. Unfortunately it is a little late now to redesign it, hopefully by the time october comes around they will have found a solution.
John
John: You are right - the front deck is a mess, but its only because I don't have the chocks yet. The tenders are not sitting as they should. Once the chocks are in place, the davit wil be parked on top of the starboard tender, freeing up the center of the bow as a wide walkway. When we were deciding where the chocks should be put, we positioned the tenders with respect to where the hatches are, and ensuring there was a good walkway down the center. It's like my desk at home -- when I take the time to put stuff where it belongs, there is much more space available, than when I just put it whereever it finds itself.
This said, the 68 bow does not seem to be as large as the 62 bow was. The square footage is there, but because of where the davit is positioned, and the step up at the front, the useable section of the bow seems smaller than what I had on my 62. If I had it to do over again, I think I would have bought a smaller tender than the 15' AB that I have on the port side. For my particular use, I think I would have been happier with two of the Zodiac jet tenders.
As to the anchors: This is a Nordhavn issue. The bow pulpit is engineered wrong. They need to fix this, or make it a single anchor boat. As it sits today, it just doesn't work. My hope is that when the boat is back in Dana Point in October, we have time to "fix" the problem with the anchoring system. For now, I'm going to treat it like a single anchor boat, with a fully redundant backup system, and cross my fingers that they find a solution. I'm really not unhappy. I can't conceive a situation, that I'll ever be in, where I'll want to deploy two bow anchors simultaneously. I wanted the dual anchor setup for redundancy, and I've got that. My fear was that I'd wrap the anchor around some coral in tahiti, and have to cut loose the anchor, or that the winlass would fry. With a 300 pound anchor, if the winlass dies, there is no easy way to retrieve the anchor. I now have a backup. That's the important thing.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/30/2007 5:09:43 PM) Ken, I noticed the latest picture of the foredeck with both tenders in place seems overly crowded, how does it look in real life and does it leave you room for unhindered access around the foredeck? As to
mounting the dual anchors, this could be a problem. Is it due to the size of your main plow anchor or was the design of the pulpit not quite right? Great to see everything coming together and it will be truely beautiful when finished. Thanks for the pictures
John.
JC: Thank you - I asked Alcom about hinging the mast, and they acted like it had never been done before. I'm on the boat tomorrow and will push this with them. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/27/2007 9:23:23 PM) Ken,
The anchor light on our sportfisher has a hinge at the base with a toggle lock. The only way it could ever be changed is to unlock it and swing it down and then back up. We would need a 10 foot ladder to get to the top from below on deck. Possibly if you must have another made some genius (you) could design it for ease of use. You seem to have a strategy for making the complex simple. By the way ours is aluminum and was painted. I think it is best to leave unpainted because of the differing metals that are mounted to the thing. Or you could ask a sailing partner for a bosun chair and pull yourself to the top of your mega yacht, at the yacht club. :)
Good Luck
jc
Ken,
Great insight on the system for diving. It sound like a must have item even for the non-diver just to be able to accomplish inspections, untangle lines, etc.
Jim
Greetings Jim! Thank you for the feedback on the website. It has been a huge amount of fun doing it.
As to the hookah: I have a system now that I have used a bunch in Cabo. My current system isn't very professional, and looks like it came from Toys R Us. I forget what it cost, but it wasn't much. That said, it is EXTREMELY popular. It has been used by dozens of people, from age 6 to 60, diving both in the pool and in the ocean. I've had it down to 50 feet, but most usage has been in about 15-20 feet of water. I like anchoring in shallow water and letting non-divers see how it feels. I am certified and either take tanks down or use one of the regulators to watch others do their first dives. It is a huge amount of fun.
The system ( Brownies Dive ) on my new boat is much more serious, and should be capable of more. I have had the current system run out of air suddenly, which can wreck your whole day. My current system will not keep up with two adults, who are my size. With two smaller adults or two kids, there is no issue. My new system claims two adult divers to 80 ft. will be possible.
The larger concern is safety. With two divers, you can easily tangle the hoses. At 15 ft of depth that can be dangerous. At 50 feet, it can be fatal. My plan is to carry one of the small bottles of air on my belt, as a backup, and to do recreational dives ONLY with trained divers when in more than about 20 feet of water. For diving alone on an anchor I'll dive alone, but try to have Roberta with a snorkel watching me if possible. Actually, to be fair, tangling of the hose has not been an issue with skilled divers. The only time is has been an issue is with rookies who get overly excited in the water, or kids who are playing. If you are calm, and use common sense, it is a non-issue.
Most of the use for my system will fit into one of the following categories: 1) Me diving alone in 30-50 feet of water to check on (or untangle) the anchor. 2) Me diving alone to check something on the bottom of the boat (zincs, prop, through hulls), and 3) Diving in extremely shallow water with rookies, just to give them the diving experience.
I'm not much for deep recreational dives, but my plan is that when I do those it will usually be with a dive instructor and tanks.
I assume from your question you've been reading the logs from Kosmos. I'm not sure if they have a hookah system or not. One of their comments implied that they do have one. Overall, I'm very satisfied with my current system (the toy) and plan to be thrilled with the new system (a serious setup).
I've actually only dived below 80 feet a few times (with a tank), and don't have an urge to go deeper, so from a depth perspective the hookah isn't limiting. Really, the only limitation is how far you can swim from the boat (50-75 yards), and that it is impossible to explore caves. For my use a hookah is perfect -- but, perhaps not for everyone's .
I can't end this without saying about hookahs - "Be careful!" Regardless of what anyone says, there is danger involved anytime you are underwater. No one should dive with a hookah without experienced supervision, and a healthy respect for the water. But -- with that caveat -- a hookah is awesome! - Ken W
Ken,
What are the limits for water depth with your hoohak system. After reading about all the times having to get in the water to free anchors, clean growth off of the hull, etc.. It sound like it is a must have item.
Jim
Ken,
Again I just wanted to pass on my thanks for such a great web site. I glean so much info, not only about your N68, but all sorts of intresting things that are going on in the yachting world. From fubar to where some of your ideas and equipment choices that you are incorporating on San Souci.
Thanks again,
Jim
Bill: Yes -- I'll post pictures of the radar arch as soon as I get to Dana Point. I'm very curious about it. The lights are on a seperate stainless steel mast which sits on top of, and on the aft side of the arch. When I was last in Dana Point, they were talking about sending it back to the metal shop to have some changes made. I also asked them to consider making changes to see if we could make my life a little easier. In particular, they had the "restricted maneuverability" lights low on the mast, but the anchor light way up high, with access to the bulb at the top. I'm not sure I could have changed a bulb as they set it up. Allegedly that has been corrected.
I was confused when I looked at the lights as to what the various lights were for. I've had the Coast Guard courses, and should have it memorized, but don't. I'm planning to take the Colregs with me (Coast Guard Regulations) and sit up on the fly bridge and see what everything is. Because this boat is over 20 meters long, I'm in the category where I need lights that the next size boat down (the N64) doesn't. - Ken W
John:
I probably shouldn't have used the word "slimy" .. oh well .. virtually all megayachts are offshore flagged. I'm confident there are good reasons to do so. It just felt wrong to me. I'm happy it all seems to have worked out as it has. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/25/2007 10:17:50 PM) Ken,
Would you take a picture of your radar arch's from the forward and aft of the arch's ? Please include the tower on the top arch.
What I am interested in seeing is the nav. lights.
Thanks
Bill Kelleher
46' Bertram
Toledo Ohio
Comment by: Visitor (6/25/2007 10:06:46 PM) Ken, you took the word (slimy) right out of my mouth. I could have ranted all day long about flags of convienence, but I'm glad I didn't. I would not want to offend someone who has shared this great boat experience with us. I cannot wait to read about your first passage after the boat is turned over to you.
John
John: Yes .. the decision has now been made. The boat is being flagged American. It's a bit irrational, but the whole idea of foreign flagging hasn't sat right with me. It just seems kind of slimey, which it really shouldn't, because the boat may only be in the US for a few weeks over the next decade. I haven't broke the news to my lawyer yet. He won't be happy with me. He has seen my boat as a great test case for getting the state of Washington to take a stand on this.
One interesting side note: I did find on the Vessel Registration site where it states that I have 60 days after entering the state to register the boat, if it is Coast Guard documented. I'll be in and out of the state in much less time than this. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/25/2007 6:10:04 PM) good luck with the trip thursday. must be exciting to now be so close to finishing the boat, looking forward to see pictures of how the boat looks in its completed form. hope the troubleshooting is short and not a lot of problems pop up.
Comment by: Visitor (6/24/2007 6:39:46 PM) Ken, not that it matters, but I'm happy to see you're planning to fly the US flag. I know to do that, you'll pay some hefty taxes up front, but I think your headaches will be much less (as you've spelled out) in the long run.
John
I'm not sure why my attorney chose the Marshall Islands, as opposed to Cayman or some other country. Currently, my plan is to flag the boat in the US, primarily due to the ongoing headache of maintaining a foreign corporation, the added complexity of customs clearing when entering/exiting the US, and the ongoing requirement to report movement of the boat to customs. -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/23/2007 8:56:55 PM) can you say why you chose the marshall islands to register the boat?
With respect to Cayman registration, and tax on salaries for crew:
It doesn't sound right that there would be no taxes for salaries paid to crew. My guess is that Cayman (or other offshore places where boats are registered) doesn't assess a tax. But that does not mean that the origin country for a crew member might not want income taxes paid.
My theory is that some people use the fact that Cayman does not give information to other countries as a way of avoiding paying taxes. This doesn't make it legal.
Here's my thinking: As a US citizen, I am taxed on income, regardless of where I earn it around the world. I do get a deduction on my US taxes for taxes paid to other governments, but I am taxed on worldwide income. There isn't dual taxation, but you are taxed at the higher of the two countries rates.
At least, that is under US law. Perhaps some countries do not tax worldwide income. For instance, it might be that a british citizen might not owe taxes to Britain for income earned in the Cayman islands. I do not know.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/23/2007 2:33:21 PM) not sure this matters to you or not or if its correct but i read somewhere that registering a yacht in the caymans not only saves on taxes but crew/captain are paid tax free also. not sure if this relates to registering in the marshall islands.
Scott: To keep all the postings on this topic in one place, I responded to you on the message board . - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/23/2007 9:21:30 AM) So it does appear from the conflicting federal laws that the Marshall Island corporation would have prevented Washington from collecting their sales or use tax regardless of how long you stayed in state? Am I reading the correctly? If the corporation is already formed, what are the remaining issues with Marshall Island registration?
Scott
Referencing an earlier query on the Anchor Alert: I emailed one of my electronics guys, and received this response: "... Dear Ken: I installed one on a N 62 about 2 years ago. I never heard good or bad, but it looked pretty micky mouse..." -Ken W
I am doing something somewhat like this, but for a different kind of usage:
The Skymate system will be sending me daily updates with the GPS position, and other key facts, like whether or not the bilge pumps have run, and whether or not the shore power is working. Most years we'll be leaving the boat in a remote port for months at a time, and this will give me assurance that the boat is well. I'm using the Skymate because it is a simpler, and cheaper, system - perfect for this kind of usage.
On the anchoring front, the right answer is for me to relax a bit. 99% of the time, the boat is safe at anchor, and can be left for a few hours without problem. I'm overly cautious as a result of the time we spent in the med, where high winds are so frequent, and can last several days. I wonder what other boaters do...
It's a fairly serious issue for reasons other than just wind. There are plenty of places we'll want to explore where we may not want to leave the boat unattended, and where there are no marinas. Think about what happens when we get to the Marquesas. There's no chance of moorage. We'll want to explore the island, but is it really safe to leave the boat unattended at anchor? Is the tender safe sitting on the beach? What's to stop someone seeing my $20,000 tender and deciding it is theirs? I'll have to email Eric Grab (Kosmos) and ask what his thoughts are on this topic.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/22/2007 3:55:21 PM) is there a way of using gps to alarm you if the boat is moving? is there a handheld gps you could take with you ie. to bed and alert you if the boat moves say 20' from its set position.
David: I looked at these when they first came out, and decided they didn't work.
http://www.bestmarineimports.com/Anchoralert.html
Looking at it again, I can't see what I didn't like. It seems great.
I'm actually pretty solid at anchoring. There are many flaws I have, but getting an anchor to set isn't on the list. I have not dragged an anchor yet. Once, when anchored off Formentera, in Spain, we had wind so high that boats all around us were breaking anchor. I had a tough decision to make on pulling anchor to avoid getting nailed by other boats which were out of control. We stayed put in 70+ knot winds, and never had a problem.
This said, I certainly worry about having a problem someday. Usually, if there is any potential for wind, I set the clock to go off every hour, and look out the window to see if the boat has moved. If there is a lot of wind, Roberta and I stand alternating anchor watch all night (which we've done a LOT). This device, if it works, would avoid that. That said, in a real high-wind situation, I can't imagine any device I'd really trust.
The thing that bothers me most is leaving the boat to go into town for dinner. In the med, the wind can come up quickly, and if I'm 20 miles away at a restaurant, getting to the boat in time to react is impossible. This device wouldn't solve that problem.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/22/2007 2:20:04 PM) Regarding your concerns about your anchor holding, have you checked out "Anchor Alert"? www.bestmarineimports.com . I don't have one but it is on my whish list.
David McConaghy
Comment by: Visitor (6/21/2007 1:40:15 PM) Scott: Great idea, and one I should have thought of.. With the anchor up, I was worried about drifting into other boats, but I suspect I would have had time to do this had I thought of it. I had visions (perhaps irrational) of the cable suddenly rupturing and the 100s of little french kids swimming around the boat having a REALLY bad day. All I could think about was getting that cable back on the bottom as quickly as possible (which as you've pointed out wasn't necessarily the best course of action). -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/21/2007 1:11:33 PM) Ken,
This may not have been possible with your snagged powercable but one easy way to dislodge anchors is to tie the offending object to the boat with a loop of line...so in your case once around the cable...then lower the anchor and raise without the object and then release the line. This has worked for me with large mooring chains and coral. Not sure it would have helped when hooking an entire other boat!!
Scott
Scott: After thinking about it -- I'm not going to ask Nordhavn about Paravanes at this time. I'm certain that strengthening, or replacing, the flopper stopper poles to handle paravances would be a big project, and at this point, I just want to go cruising. My first major ocean crossing isn't scheduled until Spring 09 (the Pacific). Between now and then the boat will undoubtedly be back at Nordhavn for some repair, and I can consider it then. Overall -- it might not be needed. I'm not the macho kind of guy who is going to venture out when things look dicey. There can always be surprises, but the kinds of surprises you get when you cross at the safest possible time are different than the surprises you can get when you push your luck during the storm season. - Ken W
paravanes are certainly an option on large boats, the issue will be an engineering one. The forces that load on parvanes loads up in a downward force on the mast to which they are rigged. There are lateral forces as well but far less. I think the challenge on the 68 given the HUGE forces that paravanes would exert is where to place the mast...or maybe masts in this case and how to transfer the load down to heavy duty structural elements in the design. A great back up system to be sure, but perhaps greater attention to routing and weather forcasting will make the redundancy less necessary.
Scott
Comment by: Visitor (6/20/2007 2:21:54 AM) Thanks Ken, I would be very interested to learn if paravanes are available on the larger model Nordhavn's. Mind you i think they may spoil the look of the boat, but it would definately appear more salty & could be a worthwhile back up system.
John
Scott and John: I agree -- I think Milt was being a bit overly optimistic to say that Nordhavns can't get knocked over.
I was very happy to see that he had paravanes on board. It won't suprise me if he needs them. I've heard that when one stabilizer fin fails the stress magnifies on the other, and it is also likely to fail. I'm very curious if paravanes are possible on my boat. I have no idea, but assume they are possible. I'll ask Nordhavn. Remember the movie the perfect storm? They were running paravanes (not that they seem to have helped), and I think that was a 65' boat. They probably aren't possible without replacing the arm that holds the flopper stoppers. It wasn't designed for paravanes, and it doesn't look sturdy enough. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/19/2007 9:35:11 PM) Yes, i believe Milt has both Active Fin Stabilizers and Paravanes for use as a back up system. That is great, but i dont think the option is there on the larger model Nordhavn's for Paravanes. I believe they just have Flopper Stoppers for use at anchor. A Nordhavn suffering a complete knockdown would not be a nice experience and i think it would be unlikely to self right. The damage that would be caused would be disasterous, so lets hope it never happens and all owners look for the right weather window for their cruising.
John
I have to disagree with Milt's comments to rollover. Nordhavn's are not immune. If the sea has taught us anything, no boat is immune from rollover. The primary difference is that most monohull sailboats are designed to right once they past. If a Nordhavn does roll...it is unlikely it will roll back. I am not saying they are not stable though I have not seen their VCG but I don't think overestimating or overselling the capablities is wise. On a really positive note, it also sounds like he has backup paravanes to his active system which I bet he is really happy with.
Comment by: John (6/16/2007 9:14:27 PM) Ken, don't feel too badly about the clogged filter incident on your "Sans Souci". I was once flown out by helicopter to a ship which had lost power off the coast of NC. The ship's engineers absolutely could not get fuel to the engines. After a study of the fuel system plans, I found vital valves had not been opened because they were mislabeled. We opened the valves and sure enough, the engines cranked right up. Turns out one of the utilitymen had decided to polish all the valve nameplates and figured it would be easier to remove them all for polishing. Unfortunately he forgot to mark the valves so he had to go by memory to put the right nameplate on the right valve. He got ALMOST all the nameplates back properly. oops! Long story short, vessel made port safely and some people lost jobs that day, though not the nameplate polisher. - John
When Roberta and I were looking at boats, prior to ordering our 68, we asked each vender about backup propulsion. None except Nordhavn offer the "wing engine" and very few offered a twin engine option. Those that did offer a backup accomplished this through a chain that could be turned by the generator. We didn't like this idea for two reasons: 1) Moving a chain around in heavy seas can be trickier than it sounds, and 2) I've seen a net tangled around a prop enough to know that an extra shaft and prop can be a good idea.
I heard repeatedly from Boat manufacturers that fishing boats go out in the Bering sea everyday 100s and 100s of miles from shore, with no backup whatsoever. I ultimately decided this was not relevant. Many of these ships have engineers who can fix about anything. That isn't me. They also have other ships usually within radio contact. Plus: they don't all come back. Fishing is considered a dangerous occupation for a reason.
The beauty of a well-built trawler is that it has plenty of redundancy, and is a little more forgiving of someone who isn't a career professional mariner. Don't get me wrong: if you are not careful, you can get yourself in a heap of trouble -- but, I am definitely a fan of redundant systems -- engines and props being high on the list.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/12/2007 9:16:00 PM) I noted the question on Tankers having one engine.
In fact many vessels have a single engine. Such large diesels have the ability to hang a cylinder off if necessary. That is, remove the piston and upper connecting rod. The vessel off Shetland was the Braer and it's issue was fuel contamination after seawater entered the fuel system. The bunker tank air vents were destroyed when some spare pipes they were carrying on deck broke loose. A big lesson here. We often forget how exposed the tank vents are. Always a good idea to check them annually to ensure they seal if submerged. (rubbers, seals, hinges, etc.)
Having said that, Stena have started building a class of vessels that are twin screw/ twin engine room construction. Totally independent fuel, purifying and DG systems. Some specialised tankers - such as dynamic positioning (DP) vessels operating in the North Sea and Brazil have similiar totally redundant systems. These are called "DP2" vessels. In the north sea, they will sit unaided in position 30-50 metres from a rig, loading in conditions up to a force 5 using twin screw and multiple thrusters and advanced poistioning systems. Pretty cool stuff.
Comment by: Visitor (6/12/2007 8:24:19 PM) god it sounds like you bought the N62, asked where the fuel goes and headed out into the open ocean :) you said you found the manual for the boat several years later. you must have quite a few funny stories to tell or otherwise scary ones!
I hoped no one would ask how our main engine on the N62 failed. Over 90% of the time (perhaps WAY over) , when a diesel engine shuts down, fuel is the culprit, and this was no exception. It was nothing more than a clogged Racor filter. I had dual Racors and could easily have swapped to the other filter, or just put in a new filter, but this was seven years ago, and I was a lot dumber about boats then than I am now. When I think back to how little I knew when we took delivery of our 62, it's an amazing endorsement for Nordhavn that we're still alive. - Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/12/2007 5:02:52 PM) very good points john, wouldn't have thought about rudder drag. ken, what caused the failure of your main engine on the 62? i would always be nervous with the main/wing combination especially along a rocky coastline in storm conditions. i know my nails would be gone if i had to do the cape horn trip. off topic but i'm surprised tankers don't use twins. the latest incident i can think of is the shetlands where the tanker lost its engine and broke up on the rocks, this would probably have been prevented if twins were used.
Comment by: Visitor (6/12/2007 2:44:20 AM) Hi Ken,
Sans Souci is looking great. Was going to visit you at Dana Point last weekend when passing from Colorado to Singapore through LA. but realised I'd be looking at champagne with beer funding, and hence be drooling with envy / desire all over your beautiful teak deck! So I'll settle for the photos.
Regarding the twin dry exhausts that Peter mentioned, in a coversation I had with one of the Nordhavn guys in Seattle boat show (I was checking out Dave's(?) 55) He said the second dry exhaust wouldn't fit. I took this to mean the deckhouse and main mast would need to be substantially modified to take the extra exhaust. Plus - I guess - there would be additional heating issues and hence insolation within the main mast. After all, they are quite bulky.
Mark
John: We agree. There may be something I don't understand, but it seems to me that I am much more efficient running the twins, than running them individually as two independent singles.
A little off the subject, but there was one time I did have to run for an extended period on my wing engine. It was VERY scary knowing that I had no backup. The wing engine actually surprised me, in that we were in heavy squalls, and even in hard rain and 40+ knot winds, I made a rock solid steady 3 to 3.5 knots. I think Nordhavn claims the wing engine (on an N62) will push the boat at 5 knots, this certainly wasn't true on my N62. I'm not complaining, and in fact, had the engine not been so hot, I'd have been happy to hug that wing engine! -Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/11/2007 10:38:09 PM) Ken, I'd add to your calculations (1) propeller drag for the shut down engine (2) drag from rudder deflection to keep her going straight. In addition, your props will be pitched for twin screw operation, right. I wonder if you could even reach full RPM when running a single engine, which could spell an overload situation if you're not careful.
John
Peter: You may be right that twins require wet exhaust. I'm not sure.
As to the idea of alternating engines, as a way of conserving fuel, I do believe this works, but I don't understand why. We had a 27' power catamaran (Glacier Bay) that we've thousands of miles. Glacier Bay's CEO has done some non-stop very long-distance cruising on the Glacier Bay, including a trip to Bermuda. I asked him how he was able to get such long range out of the boat, and he mentioned alternating engines as his technique. There are a couple of things that bother me about this: 1) I don't like shutting down an engine while on a passage. Call me superstitious, but once an engine is running, I like to leave it that way. And, 2) It takes a certain amount of horsepower to move a given boat at a given speed. Let's say that it takes 220 hp to move my boat at 9 knots. There is a direct correlation between horsepower and fuel consumption. Studying the specs for my engine , it appears that 1,225 rpm, will get me 110hp. This means consumption of around 5.1 gallons per hour per engine, or 10.2 gph overall. Running on a single engine, I still need the same 220hp. Looking at the same chart, I now need 1,575 rpm, or consumption of 10.6 gph. In other words, just looking at the charts, I'm better off running both engines. This makes sense to me. Diesel engines tend to get less efficient at higher RPMs.
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/11/2007 8:49:47 AM)
Just to add to the wet vs. dry exhaust debate: I read in one of the Circumnavigator magazines that Nordhavn always specify wet exhausts with the twin engine set-up, apparently because otherwise the mould would have had to be modified considerably. I am not a marine engineer or architect so I cannot comment on this from a technical point of view but it seems there is not always a choice for practical reasons.
Peter Mueller
Comment by: Visitor (6/11/2007 5:40:27 AM) Ken,
Let me join the debate with 1 out of right corner. On a long passage where you need to carefully consider fuel consumption, would it be possible to run the boat on 1 engine and alternating their individual use say every 4 to 6 hours? That way you would have the redunancy of twins with the ecconomy of a single when needed.....just a thought.
The whole debate of wet vs dry exhaust is a little like the debate over which is the best engine, or the debate over single engine versus twin engine. Each owner has their own opinion, oft-times strongly held, and Nordhavn is happy to install whatever the buyer wants.
Modern engines are so reliable, that the differences in reliability between different brands, or between wet and dry exhaust are negligible.
Overall we went with Lugger, twin engines and wet exhaust -- but, there really is no wrong answer. In our particular case, I chose Lugger because I had Lugger on my last boat, and it never failed. More importantly, because I called them a few times, even long after the boat was out of warranty, and they always took good care of me. As to the twins, I made the decision for a couple reasons: 1) I like keeping RPMs reasonably low. It keeps noise lower, and the engine mounts don't work as hard. Less vibration overall. And, 2) My top speed with either of the engines alone is equivalent to the two running together. I once had to run a couple hundred miles at 3 knots on the wing engine, and it wasn't fun. Lastly, I chose wet exhaust, because we wanted to maximize floor space in the main salon, and on the fly bridge. Plus, even modern engines with dry exhaust throw out soot from time to time, and it's really annoying when it happens.
-Ken W
I thought that Nordhavn had even changed there focus on wet exhaust. I noticed that on the overview for the N-86, it states that the boat will be equipped with twin MTU's - wet exhaust. To further confuse the issue, in the spec list, they list the standard engines as luggars with dry exhaust.
Edward -- thank you! -- Ken W
To the person that asked about twins and dry exhaust.. the answer is yes. I think. To my knowledge, the only issue is having enough room in the stack, that goes all the way to the top of the boat, to physically handle the size of dual exhaust tubes.
I just found this bulletin board posting by Milt Baker , who is now leading the Medbound rally, about wet vs dry exhaust. It's interesting, in that Milt's thoughts seem to echo my own. He also says up front that dry exhaust is probably better, but then, like I did, made the decision to go with wet exhaust. - Ken W
Ken-
The boat simply looks amazing and perfect. As I hope to develop my business to be internet based and manageable from any global position I can only hope that someday you upgrade and the Sans Souci II becomes available for sale :) You have put such thought and time into its development (truly a full time job despite your retirement) it is truly one of a kind and 'optioned to the max'!
Best,
Edward
Comment by: Visitor (6/8/2007 7:42:41 PM) Good question, i was of the belief that once you made the decision to go with twin engines on a nordhavn a wet exhaust was mandatory. Possibly this is not the case on the 86, i'm not sure.
Comment by: Visitor (6/8/2007 1:16:30 PM) in a nordhavn can you use dry exhaust for twins? i thought i read something about joining the exhaust pipes was too hard. could have been too expensive which would mean it can be done just not practical. all twin nordhavn's seem to use wet exhaust.
well if the argument for a larger tender is more weight up front just add more ballast there! your idea about the smaller tender makes sense.
As to wet vs dry exhaust: There are pros and cons for each. We went with wet exhaust primarily because we wanted the hot tub, and with dry exhaust, the exhaust would have come up in the center of the hot tub. The dry exhaust also would have taken space out of the main salon, and we didn't want to give up any space. Lastly, dry exhaust can throw out soot under certain circumstances, and we didn't want to deal with this. All of this said, I do believe that dry exhaust is marginally healthier for the engine, and it does free up valuable space in the engine room. It also is much less complex.
With respect to the delays: They are frustrating, but not unexpected. Our 68 is the first of a new model, and I overloaded the boat with about every option ever invented. Also, there were a lot of "firsts" on this boat: the first Nordhavn with a hot tub, the first to use a diesel furnace for water heating, the first with a completely different kind of ceiling, etc. It will be a very cool boat, but I think we knew it would be difficult to build and commission.
With regard to the tender: I was pleasently surprised by the space for the AB tender. There was some question as to whether or not it would fit at all. Everyone has told me I want the largest tender I can possibly shoe horn onto the boat. I listened to all of them, instead of my own experience. For the way we use a tender, smaller is probably better. Generally it is only Roberta and I on the boat, and we use the tender only to get to shore. A smaller tender is easier to get on and off the deck, it leaves more space free on deck, and is easier to find space for at the dock. The argument for a larger tender is that when waves come up, the larger the tender, the smoother the ride (and, safer!)
Thank you!
-Ken W
Comment by: Visitor (6/7/2007 7:43:41 PM) Hi Ken,
How frustrating do u find the delays in having the boat completed? I noticed that originally it was scheduled to ship from Taiwan in mid November of 06. So a little over 4 months was lost there & it now looks like commissioning will hold you up by another month or so. I can only immagine how you feel after amost 3 years of waiting.
The AB Tender is definately a tight fit, Hopefully this will not cause a problem when taking green water over the bow. It appears as though you will have 1 hatch permanently closed with the AB on deck. Lets just hope you never have a problem with a slow leak in the honda power tilt ram.
Comment by: Visitor (6/7/2007 3:01:45 PM) Hi Ken,
I live in Irvine , 18 miles from Dana Point, and I actually saw your NH68 from distance when I was at the harbor yesterday. Your 68 looks great !
A question to ask: A reason for choosing a wet exhaust instead of dry one.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Hidehiko
Dont worry about asking questions.. I'll answer anything...
I apologize for my confusing post about hiring someone to work with us on the boat. Other than major passages, Roberta and I will run the boat absolutely alone. We even negotiated with the insurance company to allow Roberta and I to cruise alone for a longer period of time with no one additional on the boat. When we will use help is when we AREN'T on the boat. At the end of the cruising season, I want to call this person and say "The boat is in Tokyo. X,Y and Z need fixed. Arrange the repairs, and then put the boat away for the season. See you in April." Or, I can see calling to say "I just limped into Hawaii with a bent prop. Can you get a new one, and fly here. I'm checking in at the Four Seasons." Call me when I can go again.
This will make running the boat much simpler, and given this a 76 could perhaps have been possible. This said, as it has worked out, I am VERY happy to have ordered a 68. Because we started with a blank sheet of paper, we were able to design a boat that was exactly the way we wanted it. I've been on several 76s lately, and don't know that I would trade, even if the price were the same. I like the stateroom layout on our 68 better than any I've seen on the 76. Our engine rooms are the same size
|