# How important is fuel capacity?



## serpa4 (Aug 2, 2015)

I've been a costal cruiser for a little while. Last year on my C&C 30 (16hp), used less than 20 gallons for a year. However, as a youtube person living my life through other peoples world travels, I noted some people seem to have to fill up often and inconveniently due to small capacities.
A couple years ago looking at catamarans, I decided to make a cut off point to not look at catamarans with fuel tanks under 150 US gallons (550 liters).
Is this excessive? How much does one really need? This would be a catamaran for circumnavigation and living aboard for 10+ years. It will have a generator and cloths washer to keep my wife happy. A/C use is undetermined and will vary based on guess a few times a year.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Answer kind of depends. Based on your plans to run a generator and possibly air conditioning then definitely more is better but...

Will you be cruising remote areas with limited access to refuel? 

How long would you expect to spend off the grid away from fuel supplies?

What other sources will you have to charge the house batteries?

Depending on the answers to all the above 150 gallons might be significant overkill or might be sufficient. Unless you plan on spending months in the middle of nowhere don't thing you would need more than 150 gallons.

One thing to consider, on a cat additional weight is a real performance killer. That much fuel will add over 1000 lbs to the boat. If I felt the need to carry that much fuel I would certainly split it between at least two tanks and only fill all when necessary.


----------



## celenoglu (Dec 13, 2008)

For circumnavigation you should be able to motor at least 25% of the distance. It is better to assume 30%.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

serpa4 said:


> A couple years ago looking at catamarans, I decided to make a cut off point to not look at catamarans with fuel tanks under 150 US gallons (550 liters).
> Is this excessive? How much does one really need? .


I doubt you can even buy a Cat with 150 gallons.

My boat... Which has circumnavigated... has 38 gallons in the tank and about the same in gerry cans.

Why in the world is a boat maker going to design a boat without useful tankage.

Go find a boat your wife will want to live on for 10 years and buy that. I am sure you won't even have to enquire as to the tankage.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

celenoglu said:


> For circumnavigation you should be able to motor at least 25% of the distance. It is better to assume 30%.


25% of a circumnavigation?

Lol.

Across the Pacific, 6,500 nms I used 30 gallons.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Fuel tank capacity is really a matter of Fuel availability where you are sailing and how much you have to motor.

For example in southern NE there are so many fuel docks you don't need much capacity in your tanks

Further you cruise from fuel docks the more you need to sail and the more your need to carry more fuel on board.

Like Mark's boat Shiva has about 38 gal and with a few jerry jugs fuel was never an issue. For passage I carried more jerry jugs. 

But I have had to motor over a thousand miles when we found ourselves in a huge dome of high pressure with no wind. Used all the jerry jugs!


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I have a 50 gal tank and I’m not against running the engine for 24+ hours sometimes. The lowest I’ve gotten down has been 10 gals the past 20 months. If I’m not motoring a lot I find I need to fill the 150 gal water tanks before the fuel tanks. But coming down say the ICW that switches. At cruising speed that 50 gals is over 400 miles

I do carry a 1 5-gal jug backup, because it only takes once to learn the lesson.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

If you happen to cruise in the "land below the wind", then capacity is everything....


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

When we sailed from Hawaii to Tahiti we had our tank fuel and a 150 gallons deck loaded. We hit the doldrums as expected, and motored through, using the deck loaded fuel. Then we hit 10 days of no wind at all. When we had burned our allotment of fuel considering the Tuomotus were still ahead, there we sat. We could smell the Marquesas as we drifted by, but there was no fuel to be had there, so that was that. But that was the rarity. Mostly the fuel tankage (around 200 gallons) was more than sufficient for a 32 ton gaff rigger.
On our present boat, we run a generator 2 to 3 hours every day and the main engine now and then. Now we average about 500 gallons a year, in 170 gallon tank, but we are a charter boat, with schedules to keep. That 170 gallons allowed me to motor from San Juan to Charleston SC one year, when here wasn't enough wind to even motorsail.
Every boat does OK under power in flat water. When the seas get up, so does fuel consumption, sometimes a lot, especially when punching to windward. 
There are places like coming out of Panama going west, where it is possible to have a thousand windless miles. Most would deck load fuel for that trip, or any trip, where they expected to use more than their tanked fuel.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

celenoglu said:


> For circumnavigation you should be able to motor at least 25% of the distance. It is better to assume 30%.


 So motoring for about 8,000 miles

Assume 1 gph

That is 1,333 gallons.

Anyone know of a sub 50 ft sailboat with that sort of tankage?

BTW I have a 44 ft sailboat with a typical 70 gallon tank. 1,333 is just ludicrous.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Quoting actual capacity is like asking how long is a piece of string. This really depends on the fuel consumption of the engine and generator, the likely distance to be covered and whether there is reliable wind or doldrums. 

I support the idea of having the ability to motor a percent of a passage, until fuel will be available again. What percent is the skippers call.

Keep in mind that lower RPMs and speed can substantially extend endurance.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

celenoglu said:


> For circumnavigation you should be able to motor at least 25% of the distance. It is better to assume 30%.


I also find this statement to be completely odd.
When ocean sailing, far from land, most will wait out the wind if they lose it. Fuel, in most cases on a *sailboat*, is for near shore situations and docking or entering strange harbors, or their generator.
Please explain why you think someone with a *sailboat* should need to power 30% of the time, on a circumnavigation.


----------



## Tuna Driver (Sep 17, 2011)

I think the 30% figure quoted was for between points where fuel was obtainable. So instead of 30,000 miles, 3,000 is a more likely figure and 30% of that is just under a thousand miles. We had an 800 liter capacity and were really glad when the forestay parted 500nm from port. Could have gotten by with half that capacity, but the beer would have been very warm that far south. So your 150 gallon requirement is very much in line. As stated above, you can add deck fuel if you feel more comfortable with a big reserve.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

aeventyr60 said:


> If you happen to cruise in the "land below the wind", then capacity is everything....


And your internal fuel tank capacity is.............................?

.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

BTW, philosophically speaking, I notice one of the repliers in this thread, whose circumnavigating experience was well into the early parts of last century, mentions motoring through the Doldrums (ITCZ et al)

CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the great wonders of the nautical world are the Doldrums. They're steeped with history of sailing adventures since time immemorial.

I have been through a few times and the only way to do it is to sail. The first time through, on someone elses boat we motored and I was devastatingly disappointed!

On my own boat I do what them old buggers had to do.



> Day after day, day after day,
> We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
> As idle as a painted ship
> Upon a painted ocean.


That is not about the Doldrums but about some bloke who shot an Albatross.

I commend ye to go sailing in the 'proper' way. Its more rewarding.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

celenoglu said:


> For circumnavigation you should be able to motor at least 25% of the distance. It is better to assume 30%.


I have no idea what the poster possibly could be thinking, but as others have said, this bears no resemblance to a reasonable approximation of reality. But beyond that, much of the answer revolves around the choice of boat and the choice of comfort level, since that impacts fuel consumption. For example, if you are of the 'all the comforts of home' school of thought, I can't think of a sub-50 foot boat that carries enough fuel to run air conditioning for a long passage.

At the opposite end of the spectum, the "go spartan- go now" school of thought, almost no fuel is required, especially when combined with a decently performing boat. An example of that school of thought was conversations that I had with two separate owners of sisterships of my boat.

The one had sailed from Capetown S.A. to the Caribbean. That boat was equipped with a windvane for steering, did not use refrigeration, would switch in the GPS 4-5 times a day and record coordinates. ran a tri-color at night, ran the engine well less than an hour every 3-4 days to recharge the batteries and that was only in cloudy conditions when the solar panel could not keep up, and made the trip on less than 12 gallons of fuel, less than 60 gallons of water, and averaged 150 miles a day for the entire trip. That might not be viewed as a normal passage since the first 10 days was spent broad reaching and running up the coast of Africa in 30-50 knot winds. Once things lightened he angled across the South Atlantic below the Doldrums to the South American Coast where he close reached in the adiabatic winds until north of the Doldrums.

The other couple with a sistership, went non-stop from South Africa to Scotland. They used closer to 25 gallons of fuel but motored part way through the Doldrums. If I remember correctly they carried roughly 40 gallons of fuel (two 13 gallon tanks plus gerry cans on deck). In flat water, these boats will motor at roughly 6 knots at a 1/2 gallon an hour so arguably they had at max a roughly 240 mile range. They had refrigeration that used an engine driven compressor and cold plates so arguably they had less range.

I would not even conjecture what the other end of the spectrum looks like.

Jeff


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The premise of this thread begs a point of clarity. What are the longer distances between fuel availability for the typical circumnavigation. Assuming the outlier long legs could be accommodated by fuel jugs, what is a reasonably long leg. A couple thousand miles? Carrying fuel for 500-600nm doesn't strike me as either unusual, nor excessive.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

p.s. We can easily get 500nm out of our fuel and I consider our tankage to be Coastal sized. I would prefer to have much more, to be far offshore. Not necessarily to motor alot, but to run the generator and have the option to motor, if sailing would put us in danger of incoming weather.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> The premise of this thread begs a point of clarity. What are the longer distances between fuel availability for the typical circumnavigation. Assuming the outlier long legs could be accommodated by fuel jugs, what is a reasonably long leg. A couple thousand miles? Carrying fuel for 500-600nm doesn't strike me as either unusual, nor excessive.


The longest leg of the "normal" tropical downwind cruising circumnavigation is 3,200nms from Galapagos to Marquesas. Its pretty damn difficult to get becalmed on that passage and if you do its going to only be for a day. Mind you Fatty Goodlander just finished that passage and must have been angry at the weather gods... and had a slow passage.

Then theres a number of passages about 2,000 to 2,500 long. But they are all really in the Trade Winds areas.
The Doldrums are only 120 nm to 200nms wide so its not really going to be a difficulty anyway.

As Jeff_H shows in his post, the Atlantic isnt too bad at all if you know where you are going. The Doldrums not very wide. The Azores High is large but you go around that, dial up whatever wind you want, really.

As aeventyr60 said, theres a huge chunk of Asia thats in the Land Above the Wind and you do need to motor a fair bit... but the ranges are short and the fuel is cheap.



A tropical circumnavigation just isn't that difficult. Most people over-stress about the irrelevancies (taking a wood router) instead of the important stuff (good satellite coms to download weather). I think the reason why many over-stress the irrelevancieis is that the planning phase takes years.. Job, boat buying etc, so to keep the dream alive they invent problems so they can solve them at the desk at work... and then scare the crap outta themselves. :smile Then they go home and read Survive!, watch Perfect Storm! and Adrift! and finally roll over and die like the Titanic!

(Never watch a movie or read a book with a* !* in the title!

Remember, what you think is important is not. What is important can be picked up along the way.

Its just not that difficult :nerd


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

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

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

Jeff


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


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


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

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


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Jeff_H said:


> Minne's post is very helpful. Using Mine's boat as an example, which has a comparatively large motoring range of 500 miles, and the roughly 6,000 mile passage from Capetown to Barbados or Trinidad that I mentioned above, that represents a range that is roughly 8-9% of the passage length. I suppose that it is probably possible to do a circumnavigation where the longest passages are something like 3,000 miles, which starts to get Minne's motoring range up to around 17 percent of the longest passage.
> 
> (Edit: Mark's post crossed with mine, but also sheds a lot of light on the point I was trying to raise)
> 
> Jeff


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

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


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

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

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

Personal attack removed- Jeff_H SailNet moderator

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

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

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


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> Since the OP specifically asked about fuel capacity for a circumnavigation, whatever people who daysail on a bay use isn't very meaningful in this thread.
> 
> This time, it is those of us using our boats for long-term and long-distance who have the more meaningful perspective and experience.
> 
> ...


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

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

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> Isn't Ascension Island and St Helena Island somewhere between Capetown and the Caribbean? You could go direct, but if fuel were limiting, those are available layovers. I'm not sure why a circumnavigation would ever skip those places. They are exactly the types of stops I would make, as there is virtually no other way I would ever find myself to them.
> 
> Just like Newport to the Caribbean. Many see how they're doing on fuel and will stop in Bermuda, as necessary. Of course, weather sometimes lays a trip up too.


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

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

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


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Jeff_H said:


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


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

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

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

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> Since the OP specifically asked about fuel capacity for a circumnavigation, whatever people who daysail on a bay use isn't very meaningful in this thread.
> 
> This time, it is those of us using our boats for long-term and long-distance who have the more meaningful perspective and experience.
> Bbbb
> ...


Mark,

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

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

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


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

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


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

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

:chainsaw


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


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


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

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

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

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

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

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

capta said:


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


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

Thanks,
Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Remember Lin and Larry had NO fuel and they seemed to get around OK.
> ....
> 
> So to answer the OP having a bunch of fuel in tanks not containers is a good thing.


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

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

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

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

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


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


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


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


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


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

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

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


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


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


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


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

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

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

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

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

Is that right?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


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


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

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

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

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If coastal, I would say water is more important than fuel, since both are accessible. Off shore or remote, fuel beats water...... you can make water, you can’t make fuel. It can be hard to properly maintain a watermaker, if in a harbor for lengths of time.

If circumnavigating to set a record, you’ll do a bunch of seriously long legs. However, most circumnavigators seems to really coastal cruise, interrupted by a few long passages.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> It can be hard to properly maintain a watermaker, if in a harbor for lengths of time.


Why is that? Unless a harbor has visible oil in it, or extremely silty water, we run our watermaker pretty much anywhere in harbors and anchorages, and don't find any maintenance issues other than perhaps cleaning/changing the prefilters a bit sooner.

There is a subtler side to fuel tankage beyond fuel stops. Not all fuel stops are equal. Some are poor quality fuel, and some are dangerous docks, and some require jugging. Having more latitude to pick and choose when and where to obtain fuel is nice.

Mark


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> And your internal fuel tank capacity is.............................?
> 
> .[/QUOT
> 
> 90 US Gallons! The cruising chute greatly extends that range...


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

You should have around 48 hours of fuel tankage at a 5k cruise speed in calm water. There have been times when I've had to run the engine for more than a day because of calms or need to get somewhere. That much tankage has worked for me powering through zero wind conditions in the doldrums till we found enough wind to sail, more than one forced return to port because of a rigging issue and a recent delivery when there was no wind for most of the trip. Easy to extend the range with Gerry Jugs. My boats have been pretty efficient burning around a 1/2 gallon an hour so 4 Gerry Jugs can nearly double range under power.

Another big thing is your commitment to sailing. If you are the type that MUST turn on the engine when speed drops below 5k, you might look for a fuel tank that is disguised as a boat. If you are the sail no matter what might want to throw the tanks overboard and go electric.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Good thread.
I think i have approx 50 hrs with 2x5 extra gal of cans. 35ish total.
5-6.5 knots depending on conditions so far.
Ive been tracking use and this thread helped me back get closer to learning some usable facts.
id like to track it by rpm over time....not so easy yet.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

As water makers get better and less expensive and easier to maintain.... tank capacity is less important. Perhaps in the future boat builders will include a water maker as an option instead of large tank capacity????


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Finding ones max endurance rpm is a good idea for long distance cruising. I’m betting for most diesels it in the range of 50% of max rpm, maybe a little less. Not necessarily the best place to operate a diesel. I think 60% is about the floor for normal operations and still ones gets much longer range than at full cruise.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

There is a slope up the the knee of course. 
Maybe good to learn where and how steep it is.

6.5 in calmist water at 1800 rpm with a fixed 2 blade....makes me think the fuel curve severely dips beyond that.

Something to track...over time


----------



## serpa4 (Aug 2, 2015)

Wow, quite the thread from my original post (question). I did live in Chesapeeak bay and sailed quite a bit with my 5 day on 5 day off work schedule. I did not use 20 gallons the entire year.

A previous post stated this exactly right:
The OP states he will run a Spendide or equivalent so expect his experience will be periods of high energy usage even in absence of watermaker or AC. Expect the frig/freezer will be a big draw as well. A wife who needs a washer/dryer will expect a frig(freezer. Therefore the major variable is when the air goes light do you sit and wait while decreasing your non propulsion energy use as well best you can or put the engine on. Periodically turned on the watermaker, genset, and took showers. Watched movies, listened to music not headphones, everyone was on their devices, radar went on time to time to check for local weather. Then sailed. With the lift from the Gulf Stream made good time but last day food and spirits were getting low so engine went on.

I plan to sail everywhere, even slowly, but I'm not into sitting there in zero wind. I would expect about 5-10 years to circum including pretty remote places. I can suck up high heat, but if it gets ridiculous, I would power the A/C for a few hours in the evening before bed, but not all day. Alternative energy will be big on my boat, but some things cannot be done by the sun/wind alone.

Thanks everyone for the tips/thoughts on this. I'd feel comfortable with the 150 gallon standard. I'm flexible on that amount, but needed a ballpark figure. I've seen some boats with 80 or less and they make stops all the time. The other end of the scale, the lagoon 45 with a 268 gallon tank.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I carry 35 gallons in the main tank, plus when cruising another 15 in jerry cans, giving me 50 gallons total. Now, I look at this as cruising range, figuring on about 9 MPG on average at 1800 rpm on my trusty A4. So, this roughly translates to about 450 miles cruising range if the wind completely died, which it seems to do in Chesapeake Bay a lot during mid summer. 

For comfort I have my new Honda 2200i generator, which I just fired up for the first time a few nights ago. This thing is super quiet, and I seriously doubt that someone in a boat 50 yards away could even hear it. This will be used to run my AC/heat pump and my oxygen generator, which is what is currently keeping me alive. Not sure how the fuel consumption on this will be at this point, but from the literature, it's reportedly very miserly on gas. I love those kind of words! 

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

FWIW, our internal diesel tank holds 20g and for longer trips we carry 10-12g in jerry jugs carried internally. If it isn’t possible to sail (light/no winds or light winds on the nose, we would motor if we need to be somewhere. Our longest motor trip was Annapolis to Mystic (via C&D and Cape May canals and outside Long Island) for a total distance of 320 nm. We used perhaps 25g of diesel for that distance, which included a fuel stop at Cape May and transfer of 5g at sea (to keep the tank at 1/2 or more. We ran our 3GM30 at about 2200 rpm and averaged about 13 nm/g. The longest continuous motoring was about 36 hours—love that diesel!


----------

