Nice boat for someone!!!...Cardude?

**Baker** · 04-11-2013, 06:11 AM

I have been watching this boat for quite some time. Well beyond my price range and no need for a boat like this at this point in my life. But it sure seems to be a nice boat and looks to be a decent value for a boat in this class. Anyway, just thought it might be a good boat for someone looking for a boat in this class. Based on the pics, can't find much wrong with it....other than range/tankage.

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...g_id=1709&url=

**Peter B** · 04-11-2013, 07:18 AM

Oooh, man, I couldn't keep looking at the photos that is such a nice boat Baker, and makes mine seem sooo ordinary. Boats are certainly way cheaper over in the US compared to here in Oz. That vessel would be $500k plus here, even as old as it is.

cardude01 · 04-11-2013, 07:30 AM

I think I'll buy it and sail it to Australia and sell it.

healhustler · 04-11-2013, 08:38 AM

About 4 years ago, there was another smaller boat-tailed Hyatt on the market that I was swooning over. Single 3208/210 Cat, same style. Never got a chance at it, but I recall the price was around 200K. There must be very few of these, although I've seen at least one sundeck style branded Hyatt. Not sure if that is the same company.

Nomad Willy · 04-11-2013, 08:50 AM

I think that boat has been on TF not too long ago. I remember discussing her hull form. Remember liking it a lot but thinking of it as a very rolly hull.

cardude01 · 04-11-2013, 04:43 PM

So is $299K a good price for a 1999? That's sounds high to me but what do I know? Maybe if it was totally updated with new electronics, new engine, etc.

Why is this a rolly hull? Too rounded? No keel?

CPseudonym · 04-11-2013, 05:18 PM

Stick a set of paravanes on and that beauty checks all the boxes I'd like in a liveaboard cruiser. At a future point in our lives we wouldn't mind following Larry's wake slowly down the west coast through the canal and eventually to the east coast. This beauty would fit that plan well IMO.

I'm such a sucker for a canoe stern

sunchaser · 04-11-2013, 10:48 PM

Too bad it doesn't have about 800 gallons of fuel and 300 of water. Aw shucks, a get home too. Then stabilizers then ----- etc. There is more to it than a canoe stern once the price gets to 300K and above and she begins competing against the "big boys."

Daddyo · 04-11-2013, 10:58 PM

I first saw one of the ten or so built while vacationing in Ocracoke years ago. She was red and she was the first boat I ever really noticed and I was bitten. Since then I have to admit I don't like them because of the ridiculously low freeboard.

**Baker** · 04-11-2013, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunchaser

Too bad it doesn't have about 800 gallons of fuel and 300 of water. Aw shucks, a get home too. Then stabilizers then ----- etc. There is more to it than a canoe stern once the price gets to 300K and above and she begins competing against the "big boys."

As much as you might want it to be a true passagemaker...it isn't. Just like a DeFever 49 RPH isn't. Just like a Defever 44/49 isn't. Just like a KK42 isn't....just like a ......etc....isn't. It is clear the designers did not have ocean going capabilities in mind. This is a nice displacement hull boat that has wonderful appointments. If you want the "big guys", then go on and get you one. Please show me a boat of this quality and price in this condition and size for under $300k???

CPseudonym · 04-12-2013, 12:22 AM

I find it interesting that the "advertised" range of a thousand miles would be insufficient for coastal cruising. Apparently not enough freeboard either. The charts I've read indicate 300 miles is far more than plenty for our plans. Sounds like quite a bit more safety factor than folks recommend in the passage making threads when ocean crossing is the goal. More than a 100% safety factor if my simple math is in the ballpark.

When I described "our dream" route, I never indicated anywhere how long "our dream" trip would take. Read my planned route in years not weeks. Of course if my investments tank before that time comes we may be traveling that route via canoe rather than a canoe stern trawler

ksanders · 04-12-2013, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPseudonym

I find it interesting that the "advertised" range of a thousand miles would be insufficient for coastal cruising. Apparently not enough freeboard either. The charts I've read indicate 300 miles is far more than plenty for our plans.

Yep, thats TF

If you listen to folks enough they'll tell you you need a passagemaker to cruise almost anywhere beyond the local bay.

Your read of 300 NM as being the furthest you would EVER have to go between fuel stops in North America is correct.

That means that almost any of our boats could take us anywhere we want to go along a coastline on this entire continent.

The problem is that many TF members think "if I just had XXX boat, I could go" The problem is thats not true, its just an excuse for not going. What they should be saying is "if my admrial would let me I'd go" and/or "if I didn't have to work I'd go".

The answer isn't in a more capable boat...The answer is in having more time, and a partner that actually wants to give up her land based life.

Marin · 04-12-2013, 01:35 AM

It's a nice-looking boat. I'm not sure where the low freeboard notion came from. I suppose it could be an issue if one was out in the middle of the Pacific in a storm but as has been noted by others, this apparently was not intended to be an ocean crosser.

I don't know anything about cruising down the west coast of the US, Mexico, etc. so don't know what sort of distances are involved there. But certainly for up here a 1,000 mile range is sufficient for just about anything anyone would want to do. Hell, our boat has a theoretical range of 550-600 miles but in reality is probably more like 500. Even if it was 400 that would be great for any cruises between here and the top of SE Alaska.

And I think Kevin sums up the reality of cruising very well. It's not the boat, it's the people. Obviously it's great if the boat can be matched to the intended use. But it doesn't matter how well it's matched if the owners aren't up to the dream they've set for themselves.

Look at the God-awful boats that have been used on a lot of voyages over the centuries. I related some time ago the story I read of two out-of-work laborers in the Depression who, on hearing a rumor of jobs to be had in Prince Rupert, rowed a skiff all the way up the Inside Passage, found the rumor wasn't true, so rowed all the way back down again. In the winter. In snow and wind and rain and stuff. In an open skiff. Rowing up Queen Charlotte Strait and around Cape Caution in the open Pacific. With no nice hourly weather updates and satellite photos. Just row and deal with whatever happens.

So it's not the boat that makes the journey or the dream possible, it's the people. And the less demanding the schedule, the more ill-suited the boat can be. It's only if you absolutely have to get somewhere by x-time that you need a boat capable of taking on anything the water and weather can throw at it because the odds are high that to keep your schedule you'll have to go out there when it's crappy sometimes and take a beating.

I'm not that anxious to get somewhere on that kind of a schedule in a boat. Schedules are what we make triple-sevens for.

Daddyo · 04-12-2013, 04:07 AM

I don't know why my not liking it's freeboard is a problem. I made no other comments about range, roll, crossing oceans, etc. The boat has unpleasing proportions to me. Is that OK? I have been in many non-ocean crossing situations where the low freeboard at the pilothouse door would have been a real issue, plus it just looks wrong in porportion to the height of the pilothouse. Just my observation. "Saint" was the name of the one I saw that caused me to fall in love with boats.

sunchaser · 04-12-2013, 09:13 AM

It is a nostalgia boat, made for the Gatsby era historians who haul it every winter or park it near their FL water front home to attract eyes. All of that is OK and it will see lots of views. Visually I really like it too. Its primary competition is the myriad of lobster boat designs who are much more popular today. And it is really not a 50'er. It is more like a 44 with a hobby horsing heavy fantail overhang .

Once into the $300K + range the non planing trawler boats (forget Bayliners for a moment please) to look at would indeed have greater range, more water and stabilizers. Note the newer KK 42s or 44s or Nordhavn 46s that sell like hotcakes - if in decent shape. Yes its tankage for putting around the East coast 20 miles apart harbors is fine, been there and with great fun, done that. For the 100 hour a year guys (like this vessel is) in the PNW, FL or SoCal 300 true gallons to refill is OK too. Surprisingly it would seem, some of us do more than 100 hours per year, much more and tankage is a big deal.

Daddyo, you are safe this time, they were picking on me. As Marin would say, tough bananas!

ksanders · 04-12-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunchaser

Yes its tankage for putting around the East coast 20 miles apart harbors is fine, been there and with great fun, done that. For the 100 hour a year guys (like this vessel is) in the PNW, FL or SoCal 300 true gallons to refill is OK too. Surprisingly it would seem, some of us do more than 100 hours per year, much more and tankage is a big deal.

Daddyo, you are safe this time, they were picking on me. As Marin would say, tough bananas!

Actually I have personally done the inside passage twice and never found our ability to cruise limited by our fuel supplies, and thats in the most uninhabited part of this continent.

So, based on that experience I cannot make a logical argument for a boat with extended cruising range capacities for coastal cruising.

I would argue that your limiting factor in coastal cruising is not fuel endurance, its food, water, laundry, and the simple concept of cruising being going places where "things" are.

Unless you are doing pure wilderness cruising, I see cruising as hops between places where people are. Maybe a few days at a time in between populated locations, but cruising seems to me to be seeing places, and generally those places have people, fuel, stores, etc...

Do you see an actual "need" for extended range tanks? What am I missing here?

sunchaser · 04-12-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksanders

Do you see an actual "need" for extended range tanks? What am I missing here?

You are missing the POV of many owners and buyers who deem it necessary to have lots of fuel for extended cruising whether off shore or on. I accept your POV and boating philosophy as quite acceptable for your needs.

CPseudonym · 04-12-2013, 10:24 AM

"It is a nostalgia boat, made for the Gatsby era historians"

Guilty your honor

"Daddyo, you are safe this time, they were picking on me. As Marin would say, tough bananas!"

Not so much picking as provoking you for more information as witnessed by the

emoticon at the end of my post. Tom, you and Daddyo have been there and done that in my book and I value your opinions greatly.

"You are missing the POV of many owners and buyers who deem it necessary to have lots of fuel for extended cruising whether off shore or on."

This is truly an owner POV when buying that is diametrically opposed to the complaints about old contaminated fuel and cruddy tanks. It seems that excess tankage of unused fuel at least contributes to these issues IMO. With that philosophy in mind I consider smaller(yet still quite adequate) tankage to be a plus rather than a negative.

ksanders · 04-12-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunchaser

You are missing the POV of many owners and buyers who deem it necessary to have lots of fuel for extended cruising whether off shore or on. I accept your POV and boating philosophy as quite acceptable for your needs.

OK, I can see that. Boats are what an individual wants in capability; it has nothing to do with what a person needs in capability. The challenge is when wants, are communicated to others as if they were needs.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here but when a person asks about a boat, and we respond about that boat, we often base our responses on our wants, and present them as fact. This could give someone the complete wrong impression about a particular boat.

Lets take the boat that is the center of discussion in this thread. I think its a really nice looking boat, with a look that might give the wrong impression that its a passagemaker. I think that it is a coastal cruiser, and as such its entirely capable of travel anywhere in North America.

CPseudonym · 04-12-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksanders

Lets take the boat that is the center of discussion in this thread. I think its a really nice looking boat, with a look that might give the wrong impression that its a passagemaker. I think that it is a coastal cruiser, and as such its entirely capable of travel anywhere in North America.

Great point Kevin! I never saw it as anything but a coastal cruiser. I can see how others may confuse it with one now.