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

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/list...rrency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1709&url=

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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."

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.

sunchaser said:

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."

Click to expand...

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???

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

CPseudonym said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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!

sunchaser said:

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!

Click to expand...

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?

ksanders said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

sunchaser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ksanders said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that is the reason we/I am tied to the dock. The Eagle is way more capable then we need and beyond my comfort zone.





A comforatble ride the roll period said t be between 4 to 8 seconds. 4 is to snappy and over 8 is a sign of poort stability. So many long range boats tend to roll. The Eagle roll is around 5 to 6 seconds, its not a deep roll is a comforatble roll.

Kevin

Not so much for the Gatsby boat but for my cruising locations , I've never had too much cheap clean fuel.

Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz or better yet the ability to return to San Diego with fuel remaining and no Mexican stops.

Or circumnavigate Vancouver Island on cheap US fuel saving about $1.50 per gallon vs BC fuel. This summer I hope to do a RT from say Anacortes to Kitimat, again with no high priced BC fuel taken on. Each of these BC trips could easily be 700 miles, and I prefer 1/3 remaining.

Or go from the PNW to San Francisco with no requirement to cross a bar. For me and many others, 1000 + miles with a good reserve is not a bad thing. Knowing many who use planing boats run at speed or trailer boats to do the same cruises, I well know anything is possible if you are limited on fuel range.

For that price range I would rather go with something like this:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=78861&url=

10 years older and more hours and less room probably, but definately more capable for offshore cruising Not that I'm capable for serious offshore cruising right now, but someday......

sunchaser said:

Kevin

Not so much for the Gatsby boat but for my cruising locations , I've never had too much cheap clean fuel.

Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz or better yet the ability to return to San Diego with fuel remaining and no Mexican stops.

Or circumnavigate Vancouver Island on cheap US fuel saving about $1.50 per gallon vs BC fuel. This summer I hope to do a RT from say Anacortes to Kitimat, again with no high priced BC fuel taken on. Each of these BC trips could easily be 700 miles, and I prefer 1/3 remaining.

Or go from the PNW to San Francisco with no requirement to cross a bar. For me and many others, 1000 + miles with a good reserve is not a bad thing. Knowing many who use planing boats run at speed or trailer boats to do the same cruises, I well know anything is possible if you are limited on fuel range.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that having more fuel endurance gives you more choices.

The points you brought up while valid fall into the wants versus needs category.

Take your trip down the Pacific Coast as an example. You could as you indicated run offshore the whole way never stopping in Oregon, or even Washington. That's a wonderful concept, except that you're missing everything that Oregon, and Washington has to offer.

Running long distances like you're indicating, are not necessary in North America, and in fact add to the complications of running your boat. Instead of making nice daily sightseeing trips, you're running full on 24 hours a day until you get to your destination. That requires crew, standing watches, all the things that passagemaking entails. That isnt coastal cruising in the traditional sense, its passagemaking

Again, it's a wants versus needs issue. While I respect that you want the capability of running extra long distances, you do not need that capability in North America.

sunchaser said:

Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz....... .

Click to expand...

Tom: I'm sure you didn't mean that literally as La Paz is in the Sea of Cortez and a long way from San Diego. I've made that trip several times in the past and was ecstatic to stop in Turtle Bay and Cabo, enroute to La Paz.

SeaHorse II said:

Tom: I'm sure you didn't mean that literally as La Paz is in the Sea of Cortez and a long way from San Diego. I've made that trip several times in the past and was ecstatic to stop in Turtle Bay and Cabo, enroute to La Paz.

Click to expand...

Don

You are correct, La Paz for fuel is what I meant. One of my favorite places is Loretto in the Sea of Cortez. So little time, so much to see.

cardude01 said:

For that price range I would rather go with something like this:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=78861&url=

10 years older and more hours and less room probably, but definately more capable for offshore cruising Not that I'm capable for serious offshore cruising right now, but someday......

Click to expand...

Moored with her in Ft Lauderdale in Jan. She looks a little long in the tooth but don't we all

ksanders said:

I completely agree that having more fuel endurance gives you more choices.

The points you brought up while valid fall into the wants versus needs category.

Take your trip down the Pacific Coast as an example. You could as you indicated run offshore the whole way never stopping in Oregon, or even Washington. That's a wonderful concept, except that you're missing everything that Oregon, and Washington has to offer.

Running long distances like you're indicating, are not necessary in North America, and in fact add to the complications of running your boat. Instead of making nice daily sightseeing trips, you're running full on 24 hours a day until you get to your destination. That requires crew, standing watches, all the things that passagemaking entails. That isnt coastal cruising in the traditional sense, its passagemaking

Again, it's a wants versus needs issue. While I respect that you want the capability of running extra long distances, you do not need that capability in North America.

Click to expand...

This is a very interesting discussion, mind if I ask a question?
So, I understand what your saying about cruising vs passagemaking and boat capabilities. So...if you can safely get away with a 300 mile range to cruise anywhere in North America, then what would you say would be a safe range to cruise almost anywhere worldwide? Not talking about the ocean-crossing portion, but rather, if you were to ship your boat across the ocean, then once at the destination what would be a safe range for Europe, Asia, Australia, etc to be an international cruiser?

I originally concluded an "assumed" 300 mile range based upon maximum charted distances between North American ports where fuel is available for purchase. It was just a quick search and was in no way an exhaustive survey.

I would examine marine charts and consult a resource such as active captain or cruising guide for the area you are considering cruising in. Personally I would be comfortable with more range. The boat that started this debate is in post #1 that has an advertised 1,000 mile range with a single Cat power plant.

GalaxyGirl said:

This is a very interesting discussion, mind if I ask a question?
So, I understand what your saying about cruising vs passagemaking and boat capabilities. So...if you can safely get away with a 300 mile range to cruise anywhere in North America, then what would you say would be a safe range to cruise almost anywhere worldwide? Not talking about the ocean-crossing portion, but rather, if you were to ship your boat across the ocean, then once at the destination what would be a safe range for Europe, Asia, Australia, etc to be an international cruiser?

Click to expand...

Thats a tough one, and I have no idea what the answer is.

I would guess, and thats only a guess is that the more populated an area is the more fuel opportunities.

My 300NM in North America is based on looking at charts, reading, and my own travels.

The longest documented jaunt I can find is approx 320 NM from Yakutat to Seward, but even that could be shortened down to 235NM by going Yakutat to Cordova.

There is also a leg in Mexico from ensenada to turtle bay at 282NM

The rest of north american is much shorter.

Personally I prefer a ample fuel reserve. My boat for example holds 440 gallons, and we get 1.5NMPG at 9 knots and 1.75NMPG at 8 knots. That gives us a run dry range of between 660 and 770 NM depending on speed, sea state, etc...

Last summer we took the boat Yakutat AK to Seward AK which was 320NM. We had very rough weather part of the trip, and still had enough fuel to run the last 50NM at a 14 KT fast cruise (to make it to port before dark.)

So, based on that I'd be MORE than comfortable taking our boat, weather permitting anywhere in North America. With a little research and fuel planning I would have no issues taking her much further, say through the panama canal into the carribean. Thats a big statement, but I think its probably doable fuel wise.