New Game - Rules & Round 1

[Animal]

Thought I would start a little game that facilitates some day dreaming this winter while simultaneously harvesting/sharing much of the experience and knowledge resident on this forum.

Here's how the game will be played: A hypothetical cruising situation will be presented. Next, two equally priced boats will be presented as options to satisfy the cruising plan presented. Players will then reply to the post by offering which of the two boats they would choose based upon "-ility" factors such as reliability, maintainability, durability, affordability (acquisition costs are assumed equal, so this deals with sustaining costs such as fuel, insurance, etc), suitability (for the situation presented - draft as one example), layout, aesthetics, etc. The more justification provided to explain which boat the player would choose, the better. If the details provided in the scenario or the boat options are not considered to be sufficient, the player should share the assumptions made and move on to the description of which boat is a better option for the scenario presented. To make things interesting and so as not to over-constrain the feedback, players also may offer a different boat of equal or lesser value that they believe is a better alternative than the two options provided for the cruising scenario presented - justification required of course!

Ready?

Round 1: Circumnavigation, $500k Boat
A couple plans to spend three to four years circumnavigating with at least one year in the Med, some time 'round the British/Irish isles, at least a year in the South Pacific, etc. Assume liveaboard full time, and a reasonable fixed annual budget.

Option 1: A brand new off-the-shelf Diesel Duck 382 from Seahorse Marine:
SEAHORSE MARINE

Option 2: A late model Nordavn 40 such as this one:
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...urrency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=941&url=

Option 3: A boat of equal or lesser value. Please provide a link to an example if able.

Let the games begin! More rounds to follow.

 

[ksanders]

Round 1: Circumnavigation, $500k Boat
A couple plans to spend three to four years circumnavigating with at least one year in the Med, some time 'round the British/Irish isles, at least a year in the South Pacific, etc. Assume liveaboard full time, and a reasonable fixed annual budget.

Option 1: A brand new off-the-shelf Diesel Duck 382 from Seahorse Marine:
SEAHORSE MARINE

Option 2: A late model Nordavn 40 such as this one:
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...urrency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=941&url=

Option 3: A boat of equal or lesser value. Please provide a link to an example if able.

Let the games begin! More rounds to follow.

In that case I would choose a 46 Nordhavn.

The reason why is that it fits your budget and offers more interior room than the 40' model.

The exact boat I would choose is one thats been cruised extensivly (as opposed to a lightly used boat). Having been on several very long distance cruises would indicate that it had been outfitted properly for the task, and hopefully would come equipped with an extensive set of spares.

The 46 Nordhavn is arguably the most widely recognized all world capable boat for a couple. This is for good reason.

Another boat I would consider would be the Hatteras LRC. These pre-date the Nordhavns by two decades, and are ocean crossing capable.

 

[Portuguese]

...I would go for the D Duck. It's new, you can build it around you, it's reliable, sails with power and wind, inexpensive to maintain. I’d go for it

Portuguese

 

[Animal]

In that case I would choose a 46 Nordhavn.

The reason why is that it fits your budget and offers more interior room than the 40' model.

The exact boat I would choose is one thats been cruised extensivly (as opposed to a lightly used boat). Having been on several very long distance cruises would indicate that it had been outfitted properly for the task, and hopefully would come equipped with an extensive set of spares.

The 46 Nordhavn is arguably the most widely recognized all world capable boat for a couple. This is for good reason.

Another boat I would consider would be the Hatteras LRC. These pre-date the Nordhavns by two decades, and are ocean crossing capable.

Great puts! Looks like a well travelled 46 could come in significantly under 500k as well.

Would simplicity be a factor here? Is it safe to assume the DD would be simpler from a systems perspective than the Nordhavns? (thus perhaps resulting in a more reliable/affordable boat?

 

[THD]

I would take neither-the range on both is at the bare minimum for me to consider a circumnavigation-about 2000-2100 miles. That is really cutting it close on several passages, requiring additional fuel to be carried, and eliminates some routes because of distance, i.e. Galapagos to Marquesas among others.

I would go with a used boat in that price range-a Krogen 48. It is fully trans-oceanic capable and several have made all or most of a circumnavigation. It is a bit larger and more comfortable than either the Duck or the Nordhavn. It is more efficient than the Nordhavn (I have to note that I am not a Nordhavn fan, for rather obvious reasons). The costs of operating and maintaining any well-built boat in this size range capable of a circumnavigation are probably going to be about equal so I don't look at that as a determining factor.

In short-I want a boat that can comfortably make the trip, range to give me alternatives on passages, history of reliability to give me some confidence, and equipped to make the voyage as safe and as comfortable as possible.

 

[markpierce]

If I was twice as wealthy and intended to make open-sea cruises, I'd have purchased a 382. It would seem to be more seaworthy and seakindly than the Nordhavn. With 30 percent larger fuel capacity, the 382 would appear to have greater range.

 

[Animal]

I would take neither-the range on both is at the bare minimum for me to consider a circumnavigation-about 2000-2100 miles. That is really cutting it close on several passages, requiring additional fuel to be carried, and eliminates some routes because of distance, i.e. Galapagos to Marquesas among others.

I would go with a used boat in that price range-a Krogen 48. It is fully trans-oceanic capable and several have made all or most of a circumnavigation. It is a bit larger and more comfortable than either the Duck or the Nordhavn. It is more efficient than the Nordhavn (I have to note that I am not a Nordhavn fan, for rather obvious reasons). The costs of operating and maintaining any well-built boat in this size range capable of a circumnavigation are probably going to be about equal so I don't look at that as a determining factor.

In short-I want a boat that can comfortably make the trip, range to give me alternatives on passages, history of reliability to give me some confidence, and equipped to make the voyage as safe and as comfortable as possible.

Two votes for a larger used boat - interesting! I like the idea that a well travelled boat might be better equipped to start the journey than one that has been tied up at a dock for some time.

Hadn't thoughts those two boats might be range limited - I especially wouldn't have thought the DD 382 wouldn't have the legs. So am I safe to assume a KK48 or Nord46 would have appropriate legs? And I would assume the larger DD would have the legs?

And for us new guys - what would the rather obvious reason be you're not a fan of Nordhavns? I'm new enough to not have any loyalties one way or another - just trying to learn!

 

[Larry M]

I wouldn't consider Options 1 & 2. Way to small to do a circumnavigation and be a primary residence (IMHO). and listening to an engine run for 15-20 days at time, I could do with out. Sure you can do it but...get a motor-sailor. Use the wind for ocean passages. The asking price is $221K. Take the balance of the $500K budget and put it toward an overhaul. You'd basically have a new boat that's comfortable for you and your partner and/or crew. I am not saying this is "the" boat, just an example.

1982 Benetti MOTOR SAILOR Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

 

[jeffnick]

I'm not a fan of moving parts, and unlike most, my preferance is for the smallest that will work. My vote is for a wingless sailable Duck.

 

[ksanders]

Great puts! Looks like a well travelled 46 could come in significantly under 500k as well.

Would simplicity be a factor here? Is it safe to assume the DD would be simpler from a systems perspective than the Nordhavns? (thus perhaps resulting in a more reliable/affordable boat?

The cost of the 48 LRC is much lower than the 46 Nordhavn.
In mym opinion the Hatteras would be more complex and difficult to maintain. The systems are older, and the twins are seawater cooled.

The Nordhavn is keel cooled, single engine, with a get home engine. Very reliable.

 

[ksanders]

Two votes for a larger used boat - interesting! I like the idea that a well travelled boat might be better equipped to start the journey than one that has been tied up at a dock for some time.

Hadn't thoughts those two boats might be range limited - I especially wouldn't have thought the DD 382 wouldn't have the legs. So am I safe to assume a KK48 or Nord46 would have appropriate legs? And I would assume the larger DD would have the legs?

And for us new guys - what would the rather obvious reason be you're not a fan of Nordhavns? I'm new enough to not have any loyalties one way or another - just trying to learn!

The Nordhavn 40 and the 46 are proven circumnavigation boats. They can do the job safely.

 

[Animal]

The Nordhavn 40 and the 46 are proven circumnavigation boats. They can do the job safely.

Ksanders - That's kinda what I thought. Thought I was throwing up two proven passagemakers. Certainly glad to hear folks offer up other opinions.

Jeffnick - I have to say I really resonate with your thought process.

 

[Larry M]

....My vote is for a wingless sailable Duck.

My understanding is the sail plans on the Ducks are sail "assist". You may be able to sail a little off the wind, with out the engine, but how much?

Sails.

 

[sunchaser]

THD

Do some reading on the Egret N46. It is the most documented circumnavigator of the past decade. There are several N47s, another well seasoned world traveler, that would filll the bill. DDs unfortunately lack the overall engineering and resale as compared to a Nordhavn.

 

[THD]

Animal-The rather obvious reason is that I own a Krogen-before buying we spent an tremendous amount of time looking at Krogen v. Nord and our preference, on all counts, was the Krogen. Too many reasons to list-many of them personal preference. The Nord is a good, well-built boat, but many of their design/machinery choices are not ones that I would have made. Both are capable, world cruisers that will take you anywhere you want to go, but for us, the Krogen was just the better boat.

As to range on the Duck and the 40 Nord, the listed range on the Duck is 2100 miles, the Nord even less. Yes, the Duck can be "sailed" but it is a very inefficient, slow sailing under limited points of sail. In my mind, not that useful either as propulsion or a fuel saver. A circumnavigation would require extra fuel to be carried by both-for instance, CA to HI is 2,200+ miles. Galapagos to Marquesas is 3,000+. I would prefer to keep my fuel in the tanks, not on deck.

I have always been a Hatteras fan having lived for manyy years in NC and knowing the original family behind Hatteras, but if I am not mistaken, the Hatteras LRC also has some range issues when it comes to a circumnavigation. I belive, without looking it up, that the range on the LRC is about 1,500-1,700 miles. The older ones had twin DD 671's in them.

 

[THD]

Sun-I am well aware of the "Egret", we have some friends who did most of a circumnavigation on a Nord 55'. As I noted, I have nothing against the brand, we just chose the Krogen 58' as the better boat for us. You can get anywhere you want to go on either one.

 

[Animal]

Animal-The rather obvious reason is that I own a Krogen-before buying we spent an tremendous amount of time looking at Krogen v. Nord and our preference, on all counts, was the Krogen. Too many reasons to list-many of them personal preference. The Nord is a good, well-built boat, but many of their design/machinery choices are not ones that I would have made. Both are capable, world cruisers that will take you anywhere you want to go, but for us, the Krogen was just the better boat.

As to range on the Duck and the 40 Nord, the listed range on the Duck is 2100 miles, the Nord even less. Yes, the Duck can be "sailed" but it is a very inefficient, slow sailing under limited points of sail. In my mind, not that useful either as propulsion or a fuel saver. A circumnavigation would require extra fuel to be carried by both-for instance, CA to HI is 2,200+ miles. Galapagos to Marquesas is 3,000+. I would prefer to keep my fuel in the tanks, not on deck.

I have always been a Hatteras fan having lived for manyy years in NC and knowing the original family behind Hatteras, but if I am not mistaken, the Hatteras LRC also has some range issues when it comes to a circumnavigation. I belive, without looking it up, that the range on the LRC is about 1,500-1,700 miles. The older ones had twin DD 671's in them.

Thanks, THD! Good info! Figured you might be a KK owner, but wasn't sure. I have to say I've been browsing the KK app on my iPad - looks like a very nice line of boats!

 

[markpierce]

Ark is possibly the first diesel duck (American made, dry stack, 1981-built, 38-foot LOA) in its current (Oct. 2012) color scheme, but would not qualify as I consider it a gunkholer/coastal-cruiser.

 

[Marin]

For me, the Diesel Duck is out because I would never buy a steel boat. So that leaves the Nordhavn 40 which has a proven long-distance record and excellent quality in its construction and systems.

However, since I have no desire whatsoever to go around the world in a boat, if I did want to go around the world I would select the Boeing 777. Which ironically I have just done--- every flight on our upcoming shoot around the world is on a 777.

Having $500k for a coastal cruiser would be a much more interesting situation to be in for me but that's another topic.

 

[Animal]

For me, the Diesel Duck is out because I would never buy a steel boat. So that leaves the Nordhavn 40 which has a proven long-distance record and excellent quality in its construction and systems.

However, since I have no desire whatsoever to go around the world in a boat, if I did want to go around the world I would select the Boeing 777. Which ironically I have just done--- every flight on our upcoming shoot around the world is on a 777.

Having $500k for a coastal cruiser would be a much more interesting situation to be in for me but that's another topic.

Marin - Sounds like you are ready for Round 2 of this game! I was planning on a Great Loop game with a more challenging budget requirement. Standby!

BTW - The 777 is an excellent choice! Go Boeing!

 

[ksanders]

Marin - Sounds like you are ready for Round 2 of this game! I was planning on a Great Loop game with a more challenging budget requirement. Standby!

If you make it a separate thread it would be easier to follow.

 

[Animal]

If you make it a separate thread it would be easier to follow.

That's the plan!

 

[Marin]

Marin - Sounds like you are ready for Round 2 of this game! I was planning on a Great Loop game with a more challenging budget requirement. Standby!

BTW - The 777 is an excellent choice! Go Boeing!

The Great Loop is something I know zero, zip, nada about other than what it is. So I don't know what sort of requirements this largely river and lake journey imposes on a boat. Shallow draft maybe? Low clearance?

So I'll wait for the PNW version of the game.

 

[Moonstruck]

For me, the Diesel Duck is out because I would never buy a steel boat. So that leaves the Nordhavn 40 which has a proven long-distance record and excellent quality in its construction and systems..

For a world cruiser, I think a steel hull makes a lot of sense. They can be built strong, and if damaged can be repaired anyplace with steel plate and a welder. Cosmetics at that point are not important.

I also agree with Larry M that a 38 to 40 foot craft is a little small for comfort during a circumnavigation. A 46 or so Diesel Duck or Nordhavn should fill the bill quite well. I am assuming that we are limited to choosing displacement motor cruisers.

 

[sunchaser]

THD

I assume you have done trans oceanic in your 58? Not too many have in their KKs. Tis a shame since that is their purpose, at least for those with twins or a get home. I'm sure you remember the N40 that did the round the world a decade or so ago. Lots of buzz could come KK's way by doing the same.

And your "obvious reasons" for not being a Nordhavn fan for this below $500 K question are ---? Since the N46 Egret has already easily done the ocean crossing task, I'm puzzled. The answer to Round 1 seems clear.

 

[Marin]

For a world cruiser, I think a steel hull makes a lot of sense. They can be built strong, and if damaged can be repaired anyplace with steel plate and a welder.

All good points. My reason for never wanting a boat with a steel hull is that I know some people who have or have had boats with steel hulls and they had to spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring that the inside of the hull remained dry. From what I've been told by people with experience with steel-hulled vessels, the hulls die from the inside out, not the outside in.

So in my book, the more "inert" the hull material the better.

 

[markpierce]

For me, the Diesel Duck is out because I would never buy a steel boat. ...

That's because toy boats are usually made of plastic while "real" boats/ships are built of metal.

Granted, steel hulls need frequent attention to stay ahead of corrosion; but then there's no worry of core rot and blisters.

 

[Marin]

That's because toy boats are usually made of plastic while "real" boats/ships are built of metal.

You need to let Nordhavn, Tony Fleming, and the boys down the road from our studios at Delta Yachts know that. They've been suffering under the apparent delusion that they've been making "real" boats. High time someone set them straight.

Granted, steel hulls need frequent attention to stay ahead of corrosion; but then there's no worry of core rot and blisters.

True but I think there are potential problems with all hull materials. Poor grades of steel, poorly executed welds and so on can plague a steel structure as much as blisters and delamination can plague one made of fiberglass or composites. As to core rot, I agree with you there but my take on that is that a fiberglass hull shouldn't have a wood core, period. In my mind it defeats the whole notion of having a hull made of inert materials.

 

[markpierce]

Metal also make economic sense for one-off and semi-custom boats because the cost of molds of high-production plastic boats is avoided. But then if you want a boat that is like everyone else's ...

 

[markpierce]

This corrosion and its cause under my Coot's forward cabin due to the faulty design of the anchor locker drain allowing water to enter the hull above a speed of six knots, and possibly loose steel filings, have since been corrected.