Choosing my Ocean Crossing Home - advice needed

[markpierce]

MVFortitude is beautiful classic example! I hadn't looked at the 'classic' KKs. Reminds me of the Diesel Ducks that I was interested in for a while. Not many folks want the combination of sail rig + trawler = too much effort, but it pays dividends too.

Do you use the sail rig much?
Is it your stabilization as well?

Assist sails have provided some stability and additional speed when traveling below hull speed when winds are from the beam.

 

[twistedtree]

A couple of things to add.


Jim Leishman told me first hand about the maintenance strake tank test. So KK is saying he's lying? How would they know? This is unfortunately typical of the Nordhavn-bashing that surrounded all my dealings with KK when I was considering a KK58.


Ocean crossing is a goal here. How many KK's have crossed oceans? I know of three. Dennis Fox's Sea Fox in the NAR, Richard Bost in his 42 (atlantic in both directions), and a KK that crossed from Mexico to the Marquesas, but I heard sold the boat after they arrived. Are there more?


In contrast, 6-12 Nordhavns cross oceans every single year. What does that tell you? And BTW, after the NAR, Dennis sold the KK and bought a Nordhavn, and several more since. I also know a number of other people who moved from KK to Nordhavn, but none who moved in the other direction.


Which boat is right for you depends on many, many things, and I'm not saying that a KK isn't the right choice. But in terms of demonstrated ocean crossing success, there just is no comparison.

 

[bowball]

A couple of things to add.


Ocean crossing is a goal here. How many KK's have crossed oceans? I know of three. Dennis Fox's Sea Fox in the NAR, Richard Bost in his 42 (atlantic in both directions), and a KK that crossed from Mexico to the Marquesas, but I heard sold the boat after they arrived. Are there more?


In contrast, 6-12 Nordhavns cross oceans every single year. What does that tell you? And BTW, after the NAR, Dennis sold the KK and bought a Nordhavn, and several more since. I also know a number of other people who moved from KK to Nordhavn, but none who moved in the other direction.


Which boat is right for you depends on many, many things, and I'm not saying that a KK isn't the right choice. But in terms of demonstrated ocean crossing success, there just is no comparison.

I almost feel like there could be a fallacy here. If more people think Nordhavn’s are better ocean crossers and since they want to cross oceans they buy that bought instead, then there will be more ocean crossings in them, which doesn’t necessarily mean though the alternative boat could not have crossed the same ocean.

Aldo, I wonder how many people bought Nordhavn’s wanting to cross oceans but never did?

 

[bowball]

As I think of a larger boats, if I remain coastal I’m drawn to a Fleming 65. If I wanted to really cross an ocean, the Nordhavn 68. I’m also drawn to a Delta 70.

 

[Simi 60]

I almost feel like there could be a fallacy here

Self fullfilling prophecy

 

[darkside]

No protrusion will always be more efficient than a protrusion.

Not relevant to trawlers (yet) but the statement is incorrect.
Efficiency can increase exponentially with a well designed "protrusion". The last few Americas cup regattas have proven that pretty well.

 

[Mac2]

Not relevant to trawlers (yet) but the statement is incorrect.
Efficiency can increase exponentially with a well designed "protrusion". The last few Americas cup regattas have proven that pretty well.

This was in reference to the maintenance strakes. I get the fact you can have a bulbous bow to create efficiency. I'm just wondering why 99.9 % of trawlers don't have these maintenance strakes if there so awesome. Maybe it's a Patent thing?

 

[Retriever]

I think absolute efficiency is irrelevant. The bigger question is if you have the range to get where you want to go at the speed you want to run. Efficiency is one part of the equation, tankage is the other. Neither Nordhavns or Krogens are particularly efficient as transportation. In the cost of ownership, whether one burns 20% more fuel than the other is pretty irrelevant. In practice, if you're crossing oceans in a powerboat, you're probably going to run as fast as you can to still arrive with an adequate fuel reserve. The more important question, then, is what kind of speed can you actually average for an ocean crossing in each boat, and is that speed acceptable.

By the way, we love our Nordhavn in following seas...they're our preferred sea condition, in fact. The AP has yet to have any trouble keeping up.

I thought I heard the South Coast yard, which builds a lot of Nordhavns (including the 52), moved from Xiamen back to Taiwan recently.

 

[Fletcher500]

A couple of things to add.


Jim Leishman told me first hand about the maintenance strake tank test. So KK is saying he's lying? How would they know? This is unfortunately typical of the Nordhavn-bashing that surrounded all my dealings with KK when I was considering a KK58.


Ocean crossing is a goal here. How many KK's have crossed oceans? I know of three. Dennis Fox's Sea Fox in the NAR, Richard Bost in his 42 (atlantic in both directions), and a KK that crossed from Mexico to the Marquesas, but I heard sold the boat after they arrived. Are there more?


In contrast, 6-12 Nordhavns cross oceans every single year. What does that tell you? And BTW, after the NAR, Dennis sold the KK and bought a Nordhavn, and several more since. I also know a number of other people who moved from KK to Nordhavn, but none who moved in the other direction.


Which boat is right for you depends on many, many things, and I'm not saying that a KK isn't the right choice. But in terms of demonstrated ocean crossing success, there just is no comparison.

Seems like you are taking this a bit personal. If you like your boat and it works for you, then all is good.

 

[BGodlis]

I think absolute efficiency is irrelevant. The bigger question is if you have the range to get where you want to go at the speed you want to run. Efficiency is one part of the equation, tankage is the other. Neither Nordhavns or Krogens are particularly efficient as transportation. In the cost of ownership, whether one burns 20% more fuel than the other is pretty irrelevant. In practice, if you're crossing oceans in a powerboat, you're probably going to run as fast as you can to still arrive with an adequate fuel reserve. The more important question, then, is what kind of speed can you actually average for an ocean crossing in each boat, and is that speed acceptable.

By the way, we love our Nordhavn in following seas...they're our preferred sea condition, in fact. The AP has yet to have any trouble keeping up.

I thought I heard the South Coast yard, which builds a lot of Nordhavns (including the 52), moved from Xiamen back to Taiwan recently.

Last year N proposed moving the N52 production to Taiwan. The owner of the yard, who owns both the Taiwan and China yards declined. The plan was that since the N51's had been put on hold, N offered to do a limited production run of N52s, built production style, with the same build-out as the N51s, AND at the same price, for the first 10 LOI holders of the N51. I was very interested. Unfortunately, the yard owner only had space for 1 more mold and tooling in the Taiwan yard, and preferred to move the mold/tooling for the N86, I think, I could have the wrong hull on that one. There is probably more to it, but that is what I was told. Anyhow, the opportunity ceased to exist and thus this really long thread was born.

Cheers!

 

[KnotYet]

This was in reference to the maintenance strakes. I get the fact you can have a bulbous bow to create efficiency. I'm just wondering why 99.9 % of trawlers don't have these maintenance strakes if there so awesome. Maybe it's a Patent thing?

So explain why you 'get' that a bulbous bow - certainly a protrusion -
'can ... create efficiency' but a maintenance strake cannot.
It may well be that the same physics are at work and the strakes are
similarly increasing the WLL as far as the hydrodynamics are concerned.

 

[BGodlis]

So explain why you 'get' that a bulbous bow - certainly a protrusion -
'creates efficiency' but a maintenance strake cannot.
It may well be that the same physics are at work and the strakes are
similarly increasing the WLL.

Interestingly, there are no maintenance strakes on the N41 or N51, and I believe the N71 as well.

 

[KnotYet]

Interestingly, there are no maintenance strakes on the N41 or N51, and I believe the N71 as well.

I'll guess that the twin engine designs are different and/or roomy enough without?

 

[Mac2]

Seems like you are taking this a bit personal. If you like your boat and it works for you, then all is good.

True, but the original poster is asking for opinions. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. It's an opinion. If this site is only for professionals, I'd be the first to go.
What makes this site so great, is the differing thought processes.

Twistedtree made some great points. Dennis Fox is probably the best resource for this post. He's owned numerous Krogen's and Nordhavns. His best adventure was on a 58 Krogen, but then after that adventure he bought a Nordhavn. He implies it was because none of the Nordhavn's had any major mechanical issues, but doesn't say anything bad about the Krogen.
Anyone else have info on Fox's preference for the Nordhavn?

 

[BGodlis]

I think absolute efficiency is irrelevant. The bigger question is if you have the range to get where you want to go at the speed you want to run. Efficiency is one part of the equation, tankage is the other. Neither Nordhavns or Krogens are particularly efficient as transportation. In the cost of ownership, whether one burns 20% more fuel than the other is pretty irrelevant. In practice, if you're crossing oceans in a powerboat, you're probably going to run as fast as you can to still arrive with an adequate fuel reserve. The more important question, then, is what kind of speed can you actually average for an ocean crossing in each boat, and is that speed acceptable.

By the way, we love our Nordhavn in following seas...they're our preferred sea condition, in fact. The AP has yet to have any trouble keeping up.

I thought I heard the South Coast yard, which builds a lot of Nordhavns (including the 52), moved from Xiamen back to Taiwan recently.

Retriever - Since you own an N50, have you followed the evolution of hull design on the Nordhavn yachts? I am not aware of the exact changes, but N50 and N57 owners I have conversed with love, love, love their hulls' efficiency, speed and weather performance. Do the N50/57 have maintenance strakes? I'm curious how the hulls differ, and then how they compare to the new designs - N41/51/71.

 

[BGodlis]

I'll guess that the twin engine designs are different and roomy enough without?

Maybe. We need a naval architect, who is brand agnostic, to weigh on what has become a fairly technical sticking point.

 

[Simi 60]

Interestingly, there are no maintenance strakes on the N41 or N51, and I believe the N71 as well.

Maybe they didn't want to go through the additional and not insignificant cost of changing the moulds to fix a problem that may not be there on those models.

 

[BGodlis]

Maybe they didn't want to go through the additional and not insignificant cost of changing the moulds to fix a problem that may not be there on those models.

Those are new models and moulds. Think they would have build in the strakes if needed from the beginning. Perhaps a different hull form was used to accomodate without needing strakes?

 

[Mac2]

So explain why you 'get' that a bulbous bow - certainly a protrusion -
'can ... create efficiency' but a maintenance strake cannot.
It may well be that the same physics are at work and the strakes are
similarly increasing the WLL as far as the hydrodynamics are concerned.

Easy. Per Google: Disadvantage : A bulbous bow increases ship resistance to movement at reduced speeds. It's only favorable while moving forward.

There are also references to why they only start to work in the 10-12 knot range.

 

[BGodlis]

True, but the original poster is asking for opinions. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. It's an opinion. If this site is only for professionals, I'd be the first to go.
What makes this site so great, is the differing thought processes.

Twistedtree made some great points. Dennis Fox is probably the best resource for this post. He's owned numerous Krogen's and Nordhavns. His best adventure was on a 58 Krogen, but then after that adventure he bought a Nordhavn. He implies it was because none of the Nordhavn's had any major mechanical issues, but doesn't say anything bad about the Krogen.
Anyone else have info on Fox's preference for the Nordhavn?

Dennis really liked the N55, and later enamored of the N76 - though that became more boat than they needed. During the interview Dennis says he thinks the perfect boat was the N55. Why that over the KK58 he had for 13 years?

 

[Retriever]

Retriever - Since you own an N50, have you followed the evolution of hull design on the Nordhavn yachts? I am not aware of the exact changes, but N50 and N57 owners I have conversed with love, love, love their hulls' efficiency, speed and weather performance. Do the N50/57 have maintenance strakes? I'm curious how the hulls differ, and then how they compare to the new designs - N41/51/71.

Good question! One of the reasons I bought the N50 over a 43, 46, or 47 (which were what I could afford) was the hull design. The 50 (and 57 and 62) are unquestionably "fast" Nordhavns. We can cruise 9 knots for as long as the fuel lasts. I think that's nearly WOT for a 47, and our WOT is 10.5 knots. Our slow cruise is about 7.5 knots at 4gph, but last fall we did Friday Harbor to San Francisco at RPMS for 9 knots/~7gph to beat some weather. It worked beautifully and a knot or knot and a half adds up over several days. We didn't start with a full tank and didn't fuel up until San Diego.

The 50 and 57 do have maintenance strakes. They also have bulbous bows. And they have more HP/pound than a lot of Ns. Nobody can really tell me why they're faster.

Nordhavn's newer boats certainly have better fit-and-finish, better systems designs, and more volume for the length than my old 50.

Sea-kindliness is probably more important to most of us than either ultimate seaworthiness or efficiency. Too bad it's so difficult to compare!

I don't think there's a wrong choice here. We looked at both and liked the interior livability of Krogen (fewer stairs, bigger salon), the systems design (fiberglass tanks, and owners group of Nordhavn, and ultimately a pretty rare N that combined most what we liked in both boats fell into our lap.

 

[Mac2]

Good question! One of the reasons I bought the N50 over a 43, 46, or 47 (which were what I could afford) was the hull design. The 50 (and 57 and 62) are unquestionably "fast" Nordhavns. We can cruise 9 knots for as long as the fuel lasts. I think that's nearly WOT for a 47, and our WOT is 10.5 knots. Our slow cruise is about 7.5 knots at 4gph, but last fall we did Friday Harbor to San Francisco at RPMS for 9 knots/~7gph to beat some weather. It worked beautifully and a knot or knot and a half adds up over several days. We didn't start with a full tank and didn't fuel up until San Diego.

The 50 and 57 do have maintenance strakes. They also have bulbous bows. And they have more HP/pound than a lot of Ns. Nobody can really tell me why they're faster.

Nordhavn's newer boats certainly have better fit-and-finish, better systems designs, and more volume for the length than my old 50.

Sea-kindliness is probably more important to most of us than either ultimate seaworthiness or efficiency. Too bad it's so difficult to compare!

I don't think there's a wrong choice here. We looked at both and liked the interior livability of Krogen (fewer stairs, bigger salon), the systems design (fiberglass tanks, and owners group of Nordhavn, and ultimately a pretty rare N that combined most what we liked in both boats fell into our lap.

An explanation from Passagemaker magazine on the N50 when it first came out:
The stern sections were greatly increased compared to either the N46 or N62, actually more in keeping with the semi-displacement crowd. The design team agreed early-on that ultimate efficiency was a proper tradeoff for better accommodations and onboard space. From their discussion with so many people, they knew that going from 3 GPH to 4 GPH was not a major concern for most people, as long as it did not affect range or capability—and the added volume allowed the vessel to carry more fuel.

Tank testing confirmed the reduction in hull efficiency due to the fuller stern, but not so much as to change anyone’s mind about accepting the greater interior space. The testing (conducted by B.C. Research in Vancouver, Canada) also highlighted some other benefits of the wider stern sections. For one thing, the new hull shape increased pitch resistance. When tested along with the bulbous bow, a 20% reduction in pitch was measured—certainly a desirable characteristic for any cruising boat!

Testing also showed that the dynamic lift created by the wider stern allows a higher boat speed—not exactly planing speed, but a solid 10 knots with the proper propulsion. And this is in a full displacement boat with a 44-foot waterline that can cross oceans!

 

[bowball]

Dennis really liked the N55, and later enamored of the N76 - though that became more boat than they needed. During the interview Dennis says he thinks the perfect boat was the N55. Why that over the KK58 he had for 13 years?

What I heard is he had the best time on the KK58, and the N76 was the most comfortable given the size (he said he was stable but the 50-something Nordhavn with him was getting badly tossed around) but any of these would do fine.

 

[Benthic2]

From: https://archive.nordhavn.com/atw/specs/hull.htm

P.A.E. did not rely solely on theory as it developed its MFD® hull for the Nordhavn 40. Instead it invested heavily in a complete tank testing program at B.C. Research in Vancouver, Canada. Among the breakthroughs achieved during this extensive R&D program were the addition of MAINTENANCE STRAKES™ to the bottom of the MFD® hull, which create gentle bulges in the hull form directly below the engine location. Not only do these revolutionary devices provide five feet of headroom in the engine room, they also allow the engine to sit lower for enhanced stability, minimum shaft angle and optimum thrust. The tank testing also revealed a surprising 2% increase in overall hull efficiency due to the positive effect the MAINTENANCE STRAKES™ have on the vessels' performance at higher cruising speeds.

 

[Mac2]

From: https://archive.nordhavn.com/atw/specs/hull.htm

P.A.E. did not rely solely on theory as it developed its MFD® hull for the Nordhavn 40. Instead it invested heavily in a complete tank testing program at B.C. Research in Vancouver, Canada. Among the breakthroughs achieved during this extensive R&D program were the addition of MAINTENANCE STRAKES™ to the bottom of the MFD® hull, which create gentle bulges in the hull form directly below the engine location. Not only do these revolutionary devices provide five feet of headroom in the engine room, they also allow the engine to sit lower for enhanced stability, minimum shaft angle and optimum thrust. The tank testing also revealed a surprising 2% increase in overall hull efficiency due to the positive effect the MAINTENANCE STRAKES™ have on the vessels' performance at higher cruising speeds.

I wonder what high cruising speed means. I also wonder if the maintenance strakes act like a bulbous bow, which only work at higher speeds, but create more resistance at lower speeds. Is the 2% increase at higher speeds negated by a 2% decrease at lower speeds?

Is it me, or does it seem like Nordhavn makes hull changes for interior space first rather then performance?

 

[Simi 60]

Reduced shaft angle surely make's a big difference.

 

[Mac2]

Reduced shaft angle surely make's a big difference.

They also mentioned making a shaft tunnel so they could put a bigger prop on. It would be nice to know how each of these components contributed. i.e. shaft angle difference. How much of an improvement. Bigger prop-from what to what and how much of an improvement etc.
To me the N46 hull is pure artform and follows Beebe's design to perfection. I don't understand why they would alter any of their hulls from this design.
Krogen's on the other hand have stayed true to their design. (not counting the Manatee, which was based on a lobster boat design).
How they build the boat is another story. The windows in the hull of the Nordhavn speak for themselves. Just sayin....

 

[ghostrider454]

I found the article written by a well experience blue water owner. One who has owned the boats you are currently considering. His comments are priceless.

https://mvmobyduck.com/nordhavn-vs-diesel-duck/

 

[BGodlis]

I found the article written by a well experience blue water owner. One who has owned the boats you are currently considering. His comments are priceless.

https://mvmobyduck.com/nordhavn-vs-diesel-duck/

Yep! I met with Jeff many years ago, shortly after he took delivery of his DD. I was very interested at that time. He was trying to be a salesman, of sorts, for Seahorse Marine, though not sure in any official capacity.
He had many great things to say about his N55, and I think the DD was an evolution for him, as well a desire to try something different, and better in his view.
The DD is a great blue water troller, if a bit utilitarian. Not the design/layout I am interested in at this time. I also want the support of a major manufacturer, large community, ease of use, comfort.

 

[leeman]

While I was there, I read this other blog entry. Probably a great example of everything I feared about buying from China.




https://mvmobyduck.com/a-new-build-or-used-duck/