Notices
Like Tree20Likes

Value unsinkable hull

Old 08-22-2017, 11:02 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Providing for grubers
Posts: 3,600
Default

Originally Posted by magothyboy View Post
I find the videos with the bow cut off and underway interesting . . . I know that BW even has the "bow cut off" video and I see it as an equally useless "test."

I would personally pay a 10% premium to get a boat (BW or other) that has level floatation over one of equal quality that does not.


All the best,
Kevin

Not sure I understand this comment: how is cutting off the bow both interesting and a useless test?

I posted the SeaHunter version of the old BW commercial specifically BECAUSE it's NOT a closed foam injected design. But - VOILA - it floats when cut in half.

Very happy with my little BW. But I'd LOVE to see someone argue that SeaHunter (or similar) is inferior to BW or KW (or similar).
SalmonDaze is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:07 AM
  #62  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Arnold, MD
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by The Spit View Post
You are not providing much information. As it stands, the answer is "it depends." On a lot of parameters. Size being one of the most important.

If that is a 30+ foot boat, I'll take the sinkable, add a liferaft, enjoy the extra hull volume, and be money ahead. Then again, I don't want outboards hanging from the transom of my 30+ foot boat either.

Very good point and true. While it is nice conceptually to have such a large boat with level floatation, I can see how the safety to function compromises might be too out of whack, especially if it is not a center console type boat and below deck access to systems is an imperative. I agree that at this point, the right safety gear, good operating procedures and a life raft fit the bill. For smaller CC boats like mine with little to no operating gear under decks, the foam filled route was more reasonable.
magothyboy is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:09 AM
  #63  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 5,293
Default

Originally Posted by MajSchaefer View Post
You are the one that claimed that there are boats out there that are just as unsinkable (some on your list sink like rocks), better fit and finish (some are stripped down bathtubs with ZERO fit and finish. i.e Onslow Bay), price (nearly all of them are the same price or more) and ride (this will always be a compromise).

In the end, you pick an Onslow Bay. A $270k boat with NOTHING on it is not a good "value". Also, did they ever move the key ignitions so people would stop killing the engines while turning. That was some idiot engineering right there.

You are trying to combine the good features of 10 different manufacturers in an effort to tear down a Whaler.

lol. No. (1) I am not tearing down Whaler, I've said nearly every post it may have been best for you. (2) No where did I claim every one of those boats is better in every way than Whaler, although nearly every one will win on ride. (3) I asked you specifically to pick the most important qualifications before I named anything, or else, "every option will get nitpicked on your preferences." (4) I am not trying to combine the qualities of anything. I was very clear that each of those has relative strengths and weaknesses, but that to me the combination for every one would have me looking at them first.

Also, I think you are confusing fit and finish with cushions and gadgets. A "stripped down bathtub" can have outstanding fit and finish and no where to sit--on purpose, and by design.



Enjoy your boat. I can tell it's perfect for you. I'm sorry if alternative opinions upset your boating pleasure.
Texas 17 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:22 AM
  #64  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 645
Default

The problem with the whaler is that bow, ugh, they are just ugly and I have never seen a boat I don't love (save those with masts).
Attached Images  
boatruptcy is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:25 AM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 700
Default

Originally Posted by Texas 17 View Post
lol. No. (1) I am not tearing down Whaler, I've said nearly every post it may have been best for you. (2) No where did I claim every one of those boats is better in every way than Whaler, although nearly every one will win on ride. (3) I asked you specifically to pick the most important qualifications before I named anything, or else, "every option will get nitpicked on your preferences." (4) I am not trying to combine the qualities of anything. I was very clear that each of those has relative strengths and weaknesses, but that to me the combination for every one would have me looking at them first.

Also, I think you are confusing fit and finish with cushions and gadgets. A "stripped down bathub" can have outstanding fit and finish and no where to sit--on purpose, and by design.



Enjoy your boat. I can tell it's perfect for you. I'm sorry if alternative opinions upset your boating pleasure.
No, no confusion about fit and finish at all. Any monkey can lay down fiberglass. There is no fit and finish on some of the boats you listed. Yes, it is by design, but that doesn't make it nice.

Just look at the t-top on some of the boats you listed. It as if the manufacturers finished the boat and said, "Damn, we forgot to put on a t-top, let's just slap on some scaffolding over the console." The Contender 32ST that I sea trialed rattled like crazy because of that poor design. THAT is fit and finish......or lack there of. And don't even get me started on the bow rise on that boat. The 330 Outrage that I went out on the same day was a better riding boat, period.

Have you ever really shopped and sea trialed any of the boats you listed? It doesn't sound like it. Can I even ask what 32+ boat you currently own?
MajSchaefer is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:26 AM
  #66  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Arnold, MD
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by SalmonDaze View Post

Not sure I understand this comment: how is cutting off the bow both interesting and a useless test?

I posted the SeaHunter version of the old BW commercial specifically BECAUSE it's NOT a closed foam injected design. But - VOILA - it floats when cut in half.

Very happy with my little BW. But I'd LOVE to see someone argue that SeaHunter (or similar) is inferior to BW or KW (or similar).


The reason I see it as useless is that it does not really mirror an occurrence that is nearly as likely as a swamping or flooding of a complete hull. Second is that they (BW, KW or SeaHunter) don't actually cut the boat in half, they cut about the front third of the boat away.


Heck, a better cut a way test would be to breach the hull on the side to mimic a collision that allowed water to flood the boat... or even a power plant failure that triggered stern to orientation in heavy seas offshore that triggers flooding of the cockpit and bilge.


I would not try and argue that superiority based only on floatation attributes. As one poster has already eloquently stated, each boat purchase is a set of compromises and one persons ideal set may not be the same as another persons.
magothyboy is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:31 AM
  #67  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,145
Default

In my mind, floatation only comes into play if you hit something at speed or the hull catastrophically fails far out at sea. Fortunately this is a rare occurrence as the vast majority of boats that sink, sink at the dock. If you are still concerned, radar, large capacity pumps, 316 SS hose clamps, bronze fittings, EPIRBs, liferafts, and careful maintenance is a better investment.


I'm not sure about the bigger ones, but smaller BW hulls can be severely damaged by improper modification or repair. Personally, if I were really inclined to get a boat with floatation, I would prefer the non-structural foam found on an Edgewater or others for this reason.
scooperfl is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:35 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 2,548
Default

Originally Posted by magothyboy View Post
...For smaller CC boats like mine with little to no operating gear under decks, the foam filled route was more reasonable.
I agree -- this was the point I tried to make in my first post to this thread (back on page 1.) I like the unsinkability feature in a small boat that is unlikely to have a liferaft due to its size and because it primarily operates in the near-coastal environment. I'm glad my 19' Outrage has this feature.

I just don't see enough value to this feature in a larger boat.
The Spit is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:35 AM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West Palm Beach
Posts: 3,474
Default

Originally Posted by MajSchaefer View Post
No, no confusion about fit and finish at all. Any monkey can lay down fiberglass. There is no fit and finish on some of the boats you listed. Yes, it is by design, but that doesn't make it nice.

Just look at the t-top on some of the boats you listed. It as if the manufacturers finished the boat and said, "Damn, we forgot to put on a t-top, let's just slap on some scaffolding over the console." The Contender 32ST that I sea trialed rattled like crazy because of that poor design. THAT is fit and finish......or lack there of. And don't even get me started on the bow rise on that boat. The 330 Outrage that I went out on the same day was a better riding boat, period.

Have you ever really shopped and sea trialed any of the boats you listed? It doesn't sound like it. Can I even ask what 32+ boat you currently own?
The vantage is the 32ft bow rider correct?
Texas 17 likes this.
sailfish18 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:36 AM
  #70  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 5,293
Default

Originally Posted by MajSchaefer View Post
No, no confusion about fit and finish at all. Any monkey can lay down fiberglass. There is no fit and finish on some of the boats you listed. Yes, it is by design, but that doesn't make it nice.


Have you ever really shopped and sea trialed any of the boats you listed? It doesn't sound like it. Can I even ask what 32+ boat you currently own?

I own a 31' Jupiter, not that it matters. Bought that barely over a 30 intrepid. Neither was new, because I like depreciation as much as I like a name premium. BW was not a consideration, and I spent a while crawling all over one when I was working the Palm Beach Boat Show.



Enjoy your BW.
Texas 17 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:38 AM
  #71  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Arnold, MD
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by svu View Post
Back to the original post.
Would you rather pay 100 k sinkable or 110k unsinkable?

I would consider paying that kind of premium, if you were getting full level floatation as opposed to basic floatation.


Kevin
magothyboy is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:40 AM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 700
Default

I don't think there is a price that is put on it at all. There are certainly comparable boats to Whalers that are more expensive that don't use the same build methods.
MajSchaefer is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:40 AM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 700
Default

Originally Posted by sailfish18 View Post
The vantage is the 32ft bow rider correct?
Correct.
MajSchaefer is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:44 AM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 700
Default

Originally Posted by The Spit View Post
I agree -- this was the point I tried to make in my first post to this thread (back on page 1.) I like the unsinkability feature in a small boat that is unlikely to have a liferaft due to its size and because it primarily operates in the near-coastal environment. I'm glad my 19' Outrage has this feature.

I just don't see enough value to this feature in a larger boat.
On the flip side, the larger boats tend to be further from land
MajSchaefer is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:45 AM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 2,548
Default

Originally Posted by MajSchaefer View Post
On the flip side, the larger boats tend to further from land
Yes, and that is why they should have a life raft as part of their safety equipment.
The Spit is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:48 AM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 700
Default

Originally Posted by The Spit View Post
Yes, and that is why they should have a life raft as part of their safety equipment.
In all my years in the CG, I can tell you that they don't.

Nothing is worse that than telling families that their loved ones simply vanished. No boat, no bodies, etc.

At least a floating hull in most cases was hope, and closure at the least.
MajSchaefer is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:08 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 2,548
Default

Originally Posted by MajSchaefer View Post
...
At least a floating hull in most cases was hope, and closure at the least.
That just gives owners of these boats a misguided/false sense of security. In heavy sea-state, a swamped or turtled "unsinkable" boat won't be a viable alternative to substitute for a liferaft. The sea state will make it exceptionally difficult for individuals to hold onto the boat, and the most likely outcome is they'll be swept away.

A liferaft and Epirb are a much better back-up plan for boats heading out anywhere where rescue may be a long-time coming. That is more likely to be the case for larger boats than small boats.

If safety was the primary concern, the manufacturer would be better off saving the cost of filling these larger boats with foam and instead furnishing a liferaft/epirb as standard equipment.
The Spit is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:14 PM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 365
Default

Originally Posted by svu View Post
What are your thoughts
As to the premium you would pay for an unsinkable hull all other things being equal.
id rather have an unbreakable engine if you have any of those laying around .
bubba75 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:53 PM
  #79  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 5,293
Default

Originally Posted by bubba75 View Post
id rather have an unbreakable engine if you have any of those laying around .
You can pay extra for an under-earned reputation for that, too. (But not on a BW.)
Texas 17 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:56 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Burbs of the Motor City
Posts: 6,316
Default

Originally Posted by scooperfl View Post
In my mind, floatation only comes into play if you hit something at speed or the hull catastrophically fails far out at sea. Fortunately this is a rare occurrence as the vast majority of boats that sink, sink at the dock. If you are still concerned, radar, large capacity pumps, 316 SS hose clamps, bronze fittings, EPIRBs, liferafts, and careful maintenance is a better investment.


I'm not sure about the bigger ones, but smaller BW hulls can be severely damaged by improper modification or repair. Personally, if I were really inclined to get a boat with floatation, I would prefer the non-structural foam found on an Edgewater or others for this reason.
So you would leave the dock without these items if you did'nt have full foam flotation?

If not why not have EVERYTHING you can to to increase your odds of making it back to port with a normal pulse.
magua is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread