Interesting boats

[Northern Spy]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.


The sailboat hull and lightweight build definitely gives improved speed and much better fuel economy and subsequent range. That's very attractive. But in nearly every other way, I would make different choices on the boat.


I have never understood the "great room" design, especially considering the boat's mission of ocean crossing. For any night operation, it seems essential to me that the piloting location be separate from the living spaces. This is why we have pilot houses, so they can be kept dark at night without plunging the whole boat into darkness. The great room seems more suited for a coastal cruising boat that seldom sees night operation.


A master stateroom on a 65' boat that doesn't have a separate head? Really? The sink is in the stateroom, and you step directly from the stateroom into/out of the shower? Thankfully there is a separate toilet room. And the guest bathroom is a wet head? I would expect dry heads in anything over about 40'.


The staterooms are all dark, with at most one overhead hatch. It's living in the cave of a sailboat. Add some port lights.


It looks like the only way to board the boat comfortably e.g. at a floating dock level is on the extension platform. It looks like anywhere else you will need a ladder or steps. This is why trawlers have companionways and boarding gates.


I can tell you first hand that these boats are very rolly with a round hull, shallow draft, and no keel. I helped Steve Dashew reposition Cochese and he made a maneuvering turn at slow speed and the boat rolled enough to dump a bunch of stuff off the galley counter.


And I see desks in the middle of hall ways, etc. etc.


If it were Water World and we lived our lives circling the seas, I would get it, but for how most everyone uses a boat, it seems backwards. Pleasure power boats have evolved from sailboats over the past 50 years, and this seems like watching that movie all over again.

Agreed.

Not a fanboy of the boat, but I do respect the Dashews. They are the modern Eric and Susan Hiscock. And I wouldn't want any of the Wanderer's to coastal cruise either.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I think the TF contributor Boatgm do the max with his light trimaran
Few month ago he send me a message concerning his next project an extreme boat very long and narrow boat , but no more news from him ?


But some people like to play with much more hp like

Mary Slim
the same one with far less hp could be also economic, but you must find an "equilibriste" to go on the bow

Due to hull lines if one turns into a beam sea she’ll turn much more sharply than you told the helm.
To windward she might even turn sharply (more than you thought) and require heavy throttle to get over the receding wave. And then perhaps plunging deeply into the next sea w that skinny bow.

 

[mvweebles]

A few people here have power cats and can surely comment with much more authority. I think a lot of this comes down to how important speed is to you, and what you are willing to give up. With the FPB, it's space. With a planing hull, it's fuel economy and range.

I've mentioned many times that one of my oldest and best friends has a 52' Horizon Power Cat. It's more of a luxury motoryacht than a long range cruiser, but can venture about 700nms with reduced speed.

I think his significant other was in awe of the opulence. He was thinking the stability would be a solution to her seasickness. I've been aboard for 3-4 passages of around 75-100 nms each on the Gulf. He used to crew for me when I delivered which is what got him past sailboats.

Even in modest seas, anything within 20-30 degrees of the beam is not very comfortable. It's a pretty jerky motion that makes his significant other green within minutes. The best solution is to throttle-up which is fine except it undermines cruising range for him.

He loves the boat, but I think he wishes he'd gone with his first instinct - a Nordhavn of some sort. To his tastes, a stabilized heavy displacement boat is more comfortable underway. At anchor, it doesn't take long to rig flopper stoppers.

For liveability, it depends on where you boat most of the time. Like me, he's based in Florida and has done the Bahamas a couple times. I cannot imagine a better layout with the grand central kitchen that is open to a giant open aft deck. It is sublime!

Horizon is sort of a large yacht builder with models well over 100-feet. They have a line of PCs where the 52 is an entry-level boat with a base price of around $2m. Definitely not my style, but few boats are. But they have their place - I can certainly understand their appeal. My friend definitely likes his Power Cat - Horizon owners, like Nordhavn, have brand loyalty. He's received several credible offers from buyers who don't want to be boatless during a 2-year boat build. Ultimate of first-world-problems.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

On the comfort thing, while a fast boat may in some conditions be a less comfortable ride, there is an advantage of going faster: you don't have to get beat up for as long. And in some conditions (such as following seas), the ability to go faster (range permitting) can improve comfort. A bit of extra speed in a following sea can drastically change the ride, particularly in terms of reducing corkscrewing if the seas aren't directly astern.

 

[O C Diver]

TT made some excellent points on FBPs.

The one other that I would add is that piercing a wave and completely covering the forward windows with green or blue water is just a bad idea. I'm sure the strength numbers are there, until something like the end of a telephone pole strikes the window. Water and semi submerged objects need to be deflected by a narrow leading edge and backed up by a collision bulkhead.

Ted

 

[twistedtree]

TT made some excellent points on FBPs.

The one other that I would add is that piercing a wave and completely covering the forward windows with green or blue water is just a bad idea. I'm sure the strength numbers are there, until something like the end of a telephone pole strikes the window. Water and semi submerged objects need to be deflected by a narrow leading edge and backed up by a collision bulkhead.

Ted

Humm, good point. A log would have a hard time reaching my pilothouse windows...

 

[Art]

TT made some excellent points on FBPs.

The one other that I would add is that piercing a wave and completely covering the forward windows with green or blue water is just a bad idea. I'm sure the strength numbers are there, until something like the end of a telephone pole strikes the window. Water and semi submerged objects need to be deflected by a narrow leading edge and backed up by a collision bulkhead.

Ted

Damn, O C - Vision of your telephone pole account made my ahole pucker!! LOL

 

[O C Diver]

Damn, O C - Vision of your telephone pole account made my ahole pucker!! LOL

Visualize a 2' tree trunk colliding with and taking out all the windows in the front of the pilothouse. I doubt there would be much left of the window(s) if you hit a 400 pound sea turtle at 10 knots.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Visualize a 2' tree trunk colliding with and taking out all the windows in the front of the pilothouse. I doubt there would be much left of the window(s) if you hit a 400 pound sea turtle at 10 knots.

Ted

With all due respect, this is hyperbole. The FPB's have thousands of miles, many into nasty conditions. It is a different design approach, one that has been around the West Coast for over 50-years - thin wave-piercing bow that goes through vs over the waves. This doesn't mean submerged, it means cleaving the waves. While I agree with TwistedTree's evaluation that the FPB is designed for 5% of cruising at best, it definitely excels at the 5%. There is no powerboat under 80-feet better for going into Force 8 headseas. Period. I can tell you from experience that while a Nordhavn is nice and water tight, it's a typically awful ride in head seas - it breaks waves and the wind tosses as much on-deck as can be imagined. It feels like you are dropping off a cliff into an elevator shaft. This is not a flaw for Nordhavn, it's normal. They have a fair amount of bow flare (reserve bouyancy). Bill Garden, designer of my Willard, was modest about bow flare. Ed Monk was generous with bow flare. Grand Banks' designs are generally low on the bow-flare/bouyancy scale, even compared to the DeFevers that are similar - look closely at a Defever 40 compared to a GB42; or a Monk 36 compared to a GB 36. It's a different design approach. Wave-piercing design doesn't mean it causes telephone poles - it just means the designer made a choice to accept a wet ride to reduce pitching. Dashew, in my opinion, made a great choice for the intended use case - the FPBs are designed to outrun weather predictions, better or worse. His boats have passages of up to 5000 nms - you WILL hit bad weather on that type of passage. They have done fine.

Here's the backstory: in the 1960s and 1970s, California had quite the boat design/build scene. Along comes the Wizard, Bill Lee of "Fast is Fun" fame who designs Merlin, the design template for the Santa Cruz 52 fast-crusing boat of similar class to the J120's and other fast-cruisers of the era. Merlin, Bill Lee's first effort, demolished all TransPac records and set records that helpd for over 30-years. Merlin was a stiletto that went through instead of over waves. Wet ride, but fast and relatively comfortable. No telephones - not even kinda.

The FPB is definitely built to be underway. But make no mistake, it excels at being underway. Take nothing away from her.

Peter

 

[Mambo42]

Yes! An Aussie designed and Aussie built boat should have an Aussie anchor.
One like this:

My boat is not Australian, I am not Australian, nor will I ever be, but ............I have an Excel.

 

[O C Diver]

With all due respect, this is hyperbole. The FPB's have thousands of miles, many into nasty conditions. It is a different design approach, one that has been around the West Coast for over 50-years - thin wave-piercing bow that goes through vs over the waves. This doesn't mean submerged, it means cleaving the waves. While I agree with TwistedTree's evaluation that the FPB is designed for 5% of cruising at best, it definitely excels at the 5%. There is no powerboat under 80-feet better for going into Force 8 headseas. Period. I can tell you from experience that while a Nordhavn is nice and water tight, it's a typically awful ride in head seas - it breaks waves and the wind tosses as much on-deck as can be imagined. It feels like you are dropping off a cliff into an elevator shaft. This is not a flaw for Nordhavn, it's normal. They have a fair amount of bow flare (reserve bouyancy). Bill Garden, designer of my Willard, was modest about bow flare. Ed Monk was generous with bow flare. Grand Banks' designs are generally low on the bow-flare/bouyancy scale, even compared to the DeFevers that are similar - look closely at a Defever 40 compared to a GB42; or a Monk 36 compared to a GB 36. It's a different design approach. Wave-piercing design doesn't mean it causes telephone poles - it just means the designer made a choice to accept a wet ride to reduce pitching. Dashew, in my opinion, made a great choice for the intended use case - the FPBs are designed to outrun weather predictions, better or worse. His boats have passages of up to 5000 nms - you WILL hit bad weather on that type of passage. They have done fine.

Here's the backstory: in the 1960s and 1970s, California had quite the boat design/build scene. Along comes the Wizard, Bill Lee of "Fast is Fun" fame who designs Merlin, the design template for the Santa Cruz 52 fast-crusing boat of similar class to the J120's and other fast-cruisers of the era. Merlin, Bill Lee's first effort, demolished all TransPac records and set records that helpd for over 30-years. Merlin was a stiletto that went through instead of over waves. Wet ride, but fast and relatively comfortable. No telephones - not even kinda.

The FPB is definitely built to be underway. But make no mistake, it excels at being underway. Take nothing away from her.

Peter

There are videos of the bow driving through waves with blue water on the windows. The bow lacks the buoyancy to crest a 10' wave.

Ted

 

[BruceK]

..The FPB is definitely built to be underway. But make no mistake, it excels at being underway...

Peter

and underwater,(assuming OCD has it right).

 

[mvweebles]

There are videos of the bow driving through waves with blue water on the windows. The bow lacks the buoyancy to crest a 10' wave.



Ted

Here you go - footage into 3m-4m headseas. For those unaware, for YouTube, double tap on right part of screen to fast forward in 10-sec increments.

https://youtu.be/xbNR27mG73o

Far from a submarine (no sea turtles either). Pretty stable platform. No seat belts needed on the helm chair.

Peter

 

[Mako]

Due to hull lines if one turns into a beam sea she’ll turn much more sharply than you told the helm.
To windward she might even turn sharply (more than you thought) and require heavy throttle to get over the receding wave. And then perhaps plunging deeply into the next sea w that skinny bow.

Hi Eric, been trying to respond out to you via PM but messages are rejected - mailbox full.

Moderators, might want to program a means of notifying members when they reach capacity.

 

[twistedtree]

It's interesting to see that the FPBs have evolved to now have what is essentially a pilot house, though they call it a Matrix Deck. Access is via the outside, and I expect would move to the inside were they still building boats.

 

[O C Diver]

Here you go - footage into 3m-4m headseas. For those unaware, for YouTube, double tap on right part of screen to fast forward in 10-sec increments.

https://youtu.be/xbNR27mG73o

Far from a submarine (no sea turtles either). Pretty stable platform. No seat belts needed on the helm chair.

Peter

Sorry not buying those are 3 to 4 meter waves. When you drive over the top of a 4 meter wave with your cork buoyant mid section, and your bow doesn't rest on the next wave, the bow drops to the trough.

Ted

 

[long-cours.62]

What I saw on another film of the Dashew boat they "marsouine" a lot
Sorry I don't know the world in English :-(


On the instrument I can read 34kts, 23ktrs, 18 kts itis for the true wind I presume ?


What I like it is the efficiency of ...Naïad system

 

[mvweebles]

Sorry not buying those are 3 to 4 meter waves. When you drive over the top of a 4 meter wave with your cork buoyant mid section, and your bow doesn't rest on the next wave, the bow drops to the trough.

Ted

I wonder too whether they were truly 3-4m seas. I tend to believe they are closer than most estimates only because the source. Overall, I am pretty skeptical of sea-state numbers people toss out. But suffice to say, there were significant seas - and very short-spaced. And there are loads of other videos on SetSail's YouTube channel.

I can say a couple things. First, whoever is holding the camera is pretty stable. Maybe it's an expensive stabilized camera, but it's remarkably stable which means the person holding it isn't moving around much. An earlier film of one of the first FPB 64's shows Dashew in the pilothouse with about a half-dozen middle-aged couples in sporty seas. A few are standing-up, no tension whatsover. Perhaps it's the 'excitement' part of Adlard Coles progression of emotions in heavy weather, or perhaps its a comfortable platform is snotty weather.

Second thing I noticed in the SetSail film is the boat is not lurching when hitting waves. When a traditional hull is in headseas, and hits a set that buries the bow, the boat damn near stops (or feels that way). You can feel the props struggle for bite, often with a slight shudder, and momentum build back. Having a seatbelt ain't a bad thing in conditions like that.

TwistedTree brought up some very good observations about the FPB - he's been aboard one, I have not. His observations really centered around one really important premise: even the most ardent cruisers spend a small percentage of time underway, and that the design parameters of the FPB are heavily skewed towards that 5% (or whatever the number is). He is 100% right, and frankly that's why an FPB-esque boat appeared in this list of Interesting Boats and a Nordhavn may not have (the list is long and I may have missed it).

Is the FPB design too extreme? Does it have questionable design decisions (the Great Room)? Perhaps. But if your goal is to cross multiple oceans, speed is your friend - this is settled science amongst sailors. Has been for decades now. The Westsail 'survived the Perfect Storm' thinking is quaint but no one would do it that way. Dashew was the first to apply those concepts to a powerboat, and even today has few imitators.

If I were on the dock in Acapulco and someone said "those two boats - a Nordhavn 72 and a FPB 78 - are headed to New Zealand via the Marquesas, wanna go? Pick one...." I would not hesitate - would be the FPB. Being able to economically average 12+ kts - almost 300 nms/day - in virtually any weather is simply incredible. It's easier on the boat, easier on the crew.

I closing, and this is seriously off-thread, but if you follow TwistedTree's logic that there is too much compromise to get a solid sea-going powerboat, that so much time is spent at-anchor or in-port given the common cruiser's actual use-case, than maybe the Nordhavn is over-done too? Ksanders (Kevin) who is doing some serious miles along the Pacific Coast has posted a few threads encouraging go-with-the-boat-you-have, don't need a tank. Now, there are a lot of Nordhavns out there and I'm sure there's at least one crossing an ocean as I write, but the vast majority of owners won't cross an ocean, but rather bought a boat under the guise that if it could cross an ocean, it will keep me safe in the Bahamas. Nothing wrong with that, but somehow we accept that notion - and I continually applaud Ksanders for using himself as an example that an average guy who just retired can do it.

Apologies for the diversion.....

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

In general, a fine, unflared bow will be a much wetter ride in head seas, but often more comfortable. You'll take solid water over the deck much more easily, but on a boat where that's not a big issue, submarining through waves is often more comfortable than going up and over like a more full bow will do.

My own boat is of the full bow type. Running at slow cruise (about a knot below hull speed), pitching in a head sea is bordering on excessive (depending on wave size and period), and the pitch rate is rather fast. The bow is not just significantly flared, but it's a relatively full shape below the waterline as well. Interestingly, dropping the trim tabs a little bit improves the pitch behavior at low speed by adding some damping. The bow doesn't get tossed up as high by waves, so it doesn't drop as quickly and dramatically, leading to somewhat less pitching motion and a better controlled ride. That change in ride also makes the ride slightly wetter, although I've still never taken significant spray at slow cruise.

Speeding up changes the game entirely in many boats (FD hulls excluded). Pop my boat up on plane and while there's still some pitching, it's greatly reduced. Instead, the boat becomes stiff enough in pitch that it starts to punch into the waves more. That leads to a rather firm ride, as you definitely feel the boat hit every wave (although it doesn't pound unless you're going too fast or have the bow trimmed way too high, as there's a fairly deep forefoot to prevent it from just slapping the water). The result of that is also a much wetter ride, as the boat is punching large amounts of water out of the way and blasting it up and to the sides. If the wind is perfectly on the nose it's no big deal, but with wind at an angle it can put a ton of water (as spray, not solid water) onto the boat (enough that visibility can become a problem for a few seconds at times, even with the wipers on).

Sorry not buying those are 3 to 4 meter waves. When you drive over the top of a 4 meter wave with your cork buoyant mid section, and your bow doesn't rest on the next wave, the bow drops to the trough.

Ted

Looking at the wake shots in the video, they're moving at a pretty good clip. On many boats that can exceed hull speed, doing so significantly stiffens the motion in pitch (and your wave encounters get more frequent), so the bow doesn't drop as far between waves. If they slowed down, I'd expect a much bigger pitch down into the trough. Longer boats also tend not to pitch as dramatically, so having a 70 footer in the video helps as well.

There's also another factor: in my experience, sea state always looks calmer in the video than it did in real life.

 

[Art]

Here you go - footage into 3m-4m headseas. For those unaware, for YouTube, double tap on right part of screen to fast forward in 10-sec increments.

https://youtu.be/xbNR27mG73o

Far from a submarine (no sea turtles either). Pretty stable platform. No seat belts needed on the helm chair.

Peter

Watched entire video. I liked how the boat handled and appreciated the pilot/speaker actions/reactions. Looks like a fairly nice ride in boldly choppy seas.

 

[Hippocampus]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.


The sailboat hull and lightweight build definitely gives improved speed and much better fuel economy and subsequent range. That's very attractive. But in nearly every other way, I would make different choices on the boat.


I have never understood the "great room" design, especially considering the boat's mission of ocean crossing. For any night operation, it seems essential to me that the piloting location be separate from the living spaces. This is why we have pilot houses, so they can be kept dark at night without plunging the whole boat into darkness. The great room seems more suited for a coastal cruising boat that seldom sees night operation.


A master stateroom on a 65' boat that doesn't have a separate head? Really? The sink is in the stateroom, and you step directly from the stateroom into/out of the shower? Thankfully there is a separate toilet room. And the guest bathroom is a wet head? I would expect dry heads in anything over about 40'.


The staterooms are all dark, with at most one overhead hatch. It's living in the cave of a sailboat. Add some port lights.


It looks like the only way to board the boat comfortably e.g. at a floating dock level is on the extension platform. It looks like anywhere else you will need a ladder or steps. This is why trawlers have companionways and boarding gates.


I can tell you first hand that these boats are very rolly with a round hull, shallow draft, and no keel. I helped Steve Dashew reposition Cochese and he made a maneuvering turn at slow speed and the boat rolled enough to dump a bunch of stuff off the galley counter.


And I see desks in the middle of hall ways, etc. etc.


If it were Water World and we lived our lives circling the seas, I would get it, but for how most everyone uses a boat, it seems backwards. Pleasure power boats have evolved from sailboats over the past 50 years, and this seems like watching that movie all over again.

Other side of the coin.
Every sea boat I’ve had has had every light on the boat with the choice of red or white. As you know once away from land there’s usually not much going on during your watch. You’re usually made aware of any traffic 12 to 16nm away from you. You scan with your eyes. Than with the screens. Then hang out. You’re not steering. That’s what the AP is for. It takes up to 1/2 hour to fully accommodate to the dark. Although we have headlamps I refuse to have anyone use them unless required for fine detailed work. Once accommodation has occurred usually even the red lights are left off. We go into the staterooms to sleep. On passage during the day frequently on anchor for a nap. Having spent 35+ years on sail don’t mind the “cave” at all.

It’s a big deal to be self sufficient for as long as possible. In my mind this is as important when coastal as when on passage. Sure longer self sufficiency means you have the ability to do longer passages. But it also means so much less hassles when coastal. With a watermaker, efficient house systems and fuel burn you’re not putting up with visits for fuel, water, food or supplies. Skipping down a coast without those concerns changes the experience. Finding a pleasant remote anchorage and staying put for as long as you want is liberating.

After the first blush when long term cruising you want to stay out of the sun, wind and of course rain as much as possible. The great room is a wonderful place to hang out. Sure we use our flybridge docking and when going slowly through scenic areas but even coastal being inside is more comfortable. The inside helm area sits empty when not moving and we’re in the salon and that’s most of the time.

Seems most folks are in the head twice a day and briefly time to time to pee during the day. Walking a step or two doesn’t seem a big deal to me. Last and current boat had two heads. Given 95%+ of the time it’s me and the admiral. So it was much better for her to have her head and me to have mine. So one of us had the “guest” head. This wasn’t an issue at all. Only meant with crew or guests we’d move personal stuff out of the guest head during that time.

TT is on a magnificent big boat. But the 65 Dashews or Artnauticas or Arksen or even the 19m Deep Waters are much small than his boat. More comparable to a N52 in living space or even a N475. For that size boat as a LDL the layup of the boat under discussion makes perfect sense ocean or coastal

The NT has very clever retracting guardrails on either side of the pilot house. Goal was for side boarding/unboarding. Also clever design for boarding/unboarding from the aft cockpit. Both are very rarely used. Rather we get on/off from the sim platform. It’s so much easier. Especially when your hands are full or you’re carrying something heavy. We almost always go stern in so not a problem. Of course for the dinghy that’s the only reasonable choice. When it’s choppy we pull up along side the swim platform to disembark or board.

Different boats for different folks.

I love this boat. Checks all my boxes except for choice of toilets.

 

[Fletcher500]

The owners of the FPB style of boat are all hard core cruisers, many miles under their keel, and know what they want. We have seen several builds on TF and one is on going.

Personally, I like these designs if I were into the long range distance cruising.

Speed - I am very happy at 7Kn’s but when traveling longer distances and potentially crossing oceans, speed is a good thing especially to outrun Wx and make open windows.

Anchoring - Higher profile trawlers will swing a fair amount when anchored if it’s windy. This lower profile design similar to a sailboat will swing much less. If you are in a crowded anchorage, less swing is a good thing. Or, if the wind really cranks up. It’s another reason people who do long distance extensive cruising are mostly in sailboats.

Utilitarian- if one is traveling around the world and visiting impoverished areas these vessels (in AL, not painted) dont stand out like a fancy 4 story Nordhavn with a high gloss fiberglass shine and the stainless sparkling. They look more like a research boat or government vessel so possibly less chance of drawing the wrong kind of attention.

I think some people see their vessel choice as superior, and look for reasons on forums to point out negatives of other types of boats in part to reinforce their own concerns.

There are + and - for all boat designs.

 

[O C Diver]

Speed - I am very happy at 7Kn’s but when traveling longer distances and potentially crossing oceans, speed is a good thing especially to outrun Wx and make open windows.

In my experience running charter boats and my trawler near coastal (<50 miles off shore), if you're not running 20+ knots, you're not out running the weather. Less than 15 knots is maybe maintaining distance, not out running it.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Difference is passagemaking - multi-day runs. Ability to move the boat 300nms/day is extremely valuable compared to about 175nms for traditional trawler boats such as KK or Nordhavn. The difference is even more stark when you consider the KK/N would have to reduce speed more and sooner than a stiletto-hull such as the FPB. With a 72-hour developing forecast, the FPB could easily have a 300-400 nm advantage in positioning itself. That's a huge difference. And it's why for sail-cruisers, quest for speed has dominated for several decades. Nothing new here, just applied to power.

i think Fletcher 500 touched on an important dividing line: FPB and their brethren are really designed for hard-core passagemakers. People who cross an ocean for the helluva it. Nordhavn/Selene and the like are marketed to hardcore cruisers who often will not cross an ocean but want the ability to do so - I think much of the PAE marketing has an undercurrent of 'if it can cross an ocean, it's strong enough.' True, and definitely appeals to the risk-mitigation side of many folks. What bugs me about that premise is not that people make a decision for themselves, but all too often on forums like these, there is a loud chorus from the bleachers that in order to do XYZ cruising, only a Nordhavn-esque boat should be used. Until KSanders and his Bayliner 4788 sent 3000 nms from Alaska to La Paz.......

Peter

 

[twistedtree]

Lots of good points from a bunch of people.


300nm vs 200 per day is significant. No doubt about it. Just need to consider what you are trading off to get it.


Speaking for myself, choice of a Nordhavn isn't just about crossing oceans. I honestly don't know if I ever will, but that wouldn't change my pick. The build quality is excellent, and I like that. Equipment choices are all top shelf. I like that. Redundancy is just as much about not having your coastal cruising interrupted as it is about not getting stranded at sea. With a bunch of redundancy, you can just keep on going rather than having to stop, wait for parts, find techs, etc. I like the layout and use of space - it fits our use very well, and is comfortable and convenient in the ways we want comfort and convenience. I like carrying lots of fuel because then I don't have to plan around fuel stops. And I like being able to make water and carry lots of food, because I don't have to plan around that either. Are these things REQUIRED? No, definitely not, but they sure are nice to have. Will I win any races? Bloody unlikely, but I don't care. 95% of the time I'm not in a rush.

 

[mvweebles]

Lots of good points from a bunch of people.


300nm vs 200 per day is significant. No doubt about it. Just need to consider what you are trading off to get it.


Speaking for myself, choice of a Nordhavn isn't just about crossing oceans. I honestly don't know if I ever will, but that wouldn't change my pick. The build quality is excellent, and I like that. Equipment choices are all top shelf. I like that. Redundancy is just as much about not having your coastal cruising interrupted as it is about not getting stranded at sea. With a bunch of redundancy, you can just keep on going rather than having to stop, wait for parts, find techs, etc. I like the layout and use of space - it fits our use very well, and is comfortable and convenient in the ways we want comfort and convenience. I like carrying lots of fuel because then I don't have to plan around fuel stops. And I like being able to make water and carry lots of food, because I don't have to plan around that either. Are these things REQUIRED? No, definitely not, but they sure are nice to have. Will I win any races? Bloody unlikely, but I don't care. 95% of the time I'm not in a rush.

First, I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration of Nordhavn. They are purpose-built by a company (PAE) who have a history of using their boats and improving them to solve problems. Few builders compare, at least in this market. They really do build a fantastic boat. I'd also point out that due to PAE marketing and owner loyalty, have a brand-lifestyle cachet that results in a relatively inexpensive ownership experience when you include high resale value into the equation. No question its a premium brand with 100's of happy customers.

But there is a sliver of cruiser to whom the FPB is attractive - the "Bernard Moitessier" type. Recall, Moitessier famously lost the first nonstop around-the-world singlehanded race circa 1968. The race started in England and proceeded eastbound around Cape of Good Hope (Africa) and around to Cape Horn (S America), then would turn north back to England. After rounding Cape Horn, he decided to just keep going and and headed for Good Hope, then to Tahita, almost 3/4's the way around from Good Hope.

There's a rare breed like Moitessier who just like being at sea for days and perhaps weeks at a time. I'm sort of like that - I don't set out to go for 1000 nms, I just don't ever stop until I have to. Now, I love my wife and am lost without her, so I need to tamp-down that desire. And obviously its not as strong as Moittesier. But I know a few people like that - I suspect Hippocampus falls somewhere on that end of the continuum.

Could a Nordhavn be the boat for just such a person? Absolutely - I remember when the N47 first came out and early owner was legendary for just going - rumor at the time he almost caused a divorce when he crossed Tehuentepec at a dumb time. But would the FPB be a better boat for just such a person? I have no doubt - wouldn't even have to think about it. Which makes sense - Dashew came from a hardcore cruising background where that was his style too.

Different Strokes......

Peter

 

[sean9c]

If you're ok with the industrial look and the aesthetics of the exterior of the FPB's I don't understand why some say that they're heavily compromised when in port or coastal cruising. How are they compromised?

 

[mvweebles]

If you're ok with the industrial look and the aesthetics of the exterior of the FPB's I don't understand why some say that they're heavily compromised when in port or coastal cruising. How are they compromised?

Slips are usually priced by length. FPB are long and skinny, so the 70-footer probably has similar accomodations to a 52-ish footer. Plus there is ample stowage. And the lower deck is pretty sparse for natural lighting. And it apparently does not have the same luxurious ensuite head and similar accomodations. At least this is how I read TT's points about what you give-up when selecting a FPB or similar.

If I could wave a magic wand and step aboard any TF'ers boat and go for a ride, would probably be Klee Wyck's Domino. When he bought it a couple years ago, it had languished on the resale market for at least a couple years. Mostly I suspect because it was a single-head boat (easily changed), and with a ton of storage so probably pretty sparten accomodations. But what a pedigree of cruising...... Point being boats like these had very deliberate design decisions that align with very long distance cruising. Doesn't mean there are not other boats that can accomplish similar feats (e.g. Nordhavn), but in my opinion, these unique boats excel at it.

Peter

 

[long-cours.62]

For those who like light motor catamaran

and small engine 2x 75 hp cruising speed they say 10kts and top speed 14kts ...
https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/2022-custom-rs57-8643188/

 

[Hippocampus]

Weather- I use a weather router. We discuss probabilities. We discuss what side of a cyclonic event you want to be on. I understand predictions have progressively gotten much better but remain not granular enough nor accurate enough to avoid serious weather all the time. So we discuss the models and the worse as well as the best. People talk about survival storms. That’s an outlier. People use the word storm loosely. I’ve been in one true Beaufort storm in 35+ years and one microburst. They are very rare with a bit of forethought. But unpleasant weather is sometimes unavoidable. More concerned about squalls, gales and even sustained fresh breeze bringing up an unpleasant seaway. Here the longer a days work gives you more options. Even just being on the good side of a cyclonic event is very much worthwhile.
Both the heavy displacement model and the ultralight can be designed to be effective, comfortable and safe in a seaway or severe weather. In sail the majority racing the Southern Ocean or exposed to the sudden high winds and seas of high latitude cruising have gone to ultralight abandoning heavy displacement.
Progressively it was realized the heavy displacement double ender, the redingskoite, atkins, Norwegian lifeboat designs fared poorly compared with ultralights in serious weather. Look at any of the major rally disasters. Ultra light Center boarders did best, then high aspect fins, then moderate displacement traditional designs. Second worst was heavy displacement full keeled boats and dead last doubled ended, full keeled heavy displacement boats.
Trees survive storms. Some are so big and strong they can stand up to most anything. Others bend with the wind but have the inherent strength to not fracture or have serious injury.
Boats are the same but only with advances in material engineering have we had the ability to make light and strong. TT is right there’s a difference between AVS and tenderness. A heavy boat has more inertia and if not too dependent upon form stability will be less responsive to sudden small perturbations. Fins are less helpful than gyros or Magnus in the setting he described. Here you have a choice. If a pure passagemaker fins may continue to be the best choice. But in mixed use possibly Magnus or gyros might be better.
Dashews description of the techniques available in a FPB are quite different than for heavy displacement when dealing with weather. Even somewhat overlap the coastal techniques for SD hulls. But for the cruiser think it’s not about weather but rather the day to day. Heavier the boat more fuel needed to move it. More fuel means more weight. Catch 22 as weight and necessary volume for it increase. KISS applies as well. Bigger heavier boat means bigger engines. Now a days that means much more complexity as the tiers go up in numbers. Big difference between a M2 JD 4045 or a Beta and something moving 100K+ heavyweight. If a was doing another Bluewater cruiser I’d even go back to a DC spectra extreme or the like with no computer controls. Cruising boats should be simple. Especially for those of us without unlimited funds. Although magnificent N and KKs are complex ladies. Given power draws solar isn’t going to be able to keep up with hotel demands as there’s just not the available space in those designs unless always in sunny clement places. The current crop of LDLs even the non hybrid are purposefully designed with optimal spaces for solar.
It’s a different design philosophy. Be big and strong enough to stand up to the demands of a seagoing life or tread lightly, decrease the stresses and strains and demands made. It’s not one’s better just different.