Quote:
Originally Posted by brian eiland
I assume this AT 395 is the 41 footer you are referring to?. and I thought the newer 34 footer was referred to as the AT 365?? So is she really 7' feet longer or about 5' longer?
In either case I really am having trouble understanding how this little bit of difference in hull length can have such a BIG effect of the pricing?? Both of these vessels require a very similar equipment fit-out in the theme of things. and an old axiom is that the hull structure of a vessel probably accounts for no more than 20% of the cost of building a vessel.
Here is the layout of that 395 model,...not that much different than the 365?. I think they even have the same beam?
Attachment 25178
Attachment 25179 |
The AT 395 is not the AT 41 I was referring to. Sorry, I was mixing new and old naming conventions. Let me begin by getting the numbering convention straightened out.
Under some industry wide agreements for standardizing how to calculate hull lengths, TOMCO has renamed all of their vessels, and they now better reflect the actual lengths.
AT 34 => AT 365 (36.5')
AT 41 =>435 (43.5')
At the same time, they produced a new boat named the AT 395 (39.5'). This boat has the same width and draft as the AT 365. It is a stretch version, adding 3' to enable a small second stateroom, room for a chair in the salon at the expense of a cabinet, and a bit of extra room in the cockpit.
The AT 435 is a much larger boat, with a full second stateroom, second head, U shaped galley, additional seating in the salon, and a much larger cockpit. The data I gave you (7 ft longer and 2 ft 7 in wider, has 1 ft 5 in more draft) was for this boat.
Be careful when you compare these floor plans on the TOMCO web site. The diagrams are adjusted to show all boats in the same size window, thus they are not to scale relative to each other.
I think you will find that the as new base cost of the AT 395 is about midway between the as new base costs of the AT 365 and the AT 435.
Linear Mode
