Boat design (radar arch): give your preference!

[MapisM]

Ok folks, hopefully the poll options are self explanatory enough - what do you prefer?

But please, don't cheat.
Of course you might easily find out on the web what the original version is, as originally drawn by a very well known architect (Zuccon), but your personal views are what really matter here.
And those who know that without the need to make any search (PowerYachtBlog springs to mind, for instance... ), please give your unbiased opinion anyway!
Thanks in advance.

 

[Whitelighter]

I prefer the second - Ferretti arch design tends to put them right at the ack from that era and number 2 just looks right.

 

[petem]

First flows better a looks a bit quirky and I like that.

 

[[2068]]

The second looks like it has hit a low bridge, which pushed the arch to the point where it almost falls off the back.

 

[Portofino]

The first -looks more big boaty cum superyacht in the sence the area to the rear of the RA is where a crane , tender, or other toy ? and life saving gear is stowed.
Less chance of stress cracks as age catches up with flexing in a bigger than planned sea ,with the rearmost cantilevered version .

 

[BartW]

being to quick, I selected to first,
but wanted to vote for the second, (can't undo it)


the radar arch is rather low, so in the first pic you can't stand under the radar arch, so not very practical for using the rear space of the FB
moreover, the lines in the second pics looks more sleek
imho

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

First flows better a looks a bit quirky and I like that.

This is very important and I agree. The way the first flows with all the flybridge and how it connects make it an eye grabber.
Still if one had to redesign the flybridge settee's I am sure the second would work better, as you can make an aft large U-shape dinette and a sun-pad to the side of helm station, replacing the current C-shaped dinette and some wet-bar in between.

The last version of the 54, 175, 60 was the 62 see picture. I still say the 175 looked much better, with the flybridge edition looking as an afterthought. I think Ferretti still managed to sell 10 of these in between 1998-2000.

http://foto.inautia.it/barcosOcasion/7/6/9/6/ferretti-62-17363070082967516551556751534565x.jpg

Layout of 62; http://www.charterworld.com/images/yachts/FERETTI 62 - Layout.jpg

 

[MapisM]

Thanks folks for your contribution, that's an interesting result indeed, so far.
I expected an overwhelming consensus for the second, which is actually a modified boat, while the original arch is the first, as PYB correctly pointed out.
Obviously Zuccon knew better than myself, when he designed the thing!

Anyway, having recently seen the second in flesh, I must say that aesthetic aside, the f/b spaces are MUCH better, for the reasons BartW pointed out.
Otoh, the only possible advantage of the original version, i.e. leaving the aft side of the f/b for tender storage, actually doesn't apply to this model, that doesn't have a f/b crane.

Incidentally, with reference to my other thread on older boats which were better built, this is indeed one fine example.
I've seen things on this vessel (early 90s vintage) which are MUCH better than any 2000+ Ferrettis (as well as several other yards' boats for that matter) that I've seen...

 

[MapisM]

Layout of 62;

W, are you sure that this layout is really of a 62?
I mean, the further evolution based of the 54/175/60/62 hull, i.e. the 620 (with the completely redesigned superstructure), is very elegant and sleek - to the point that I heard several folks mentioning it as the most elegant Ferretti ever built. But her cabins layout is plain silly, imho.
I've never seen a 62 in flesh, but the layout you linked seems to me much nicer and modern than the one of the 620. If they came out with the 620 layout after having built in the same hull the layout of your link, I wonder what were they thinking....

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I picked the first design because it reminded me of my 630. Maybe Zuccon designed the radar arch to be forward on this boat for weight distribution reasons (does the 62 have V drives like the 630?) or other structural reasons?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I've never seen a 62 in flesh, but the layout you linked seems to me much nicer and modern than the one of the 620. If they came out with the 620 layout after having built in the same hull the layout of your link, I wonder what were they thinking....

Its also similar to my 630 but better than that too because the master heads is full beam behind the master cabin not only giving more space in the heads but more separation between the master cabin and the crew cabin/engine bay. To increase the separation even more, the fuel tanks seem to be located between the master heads and crew cabin/engine bay too. So I'm asking why, if this was the layout of the 62, why didn't they carry it through to the 630

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

W, are you sure that this layout is really of a 62?
I mean, the further evolution based of the 54/175/60/62 hull, i.e. the 620 (with the completely redesigned superstructure), is very elegant and sleek - to the point that I heard several folks mentioning it as the most elegant Ferretti ever built. But her cabins layout is plain silly, imho.
I've never seen a 62 in flesh, but the layout you linked seems to me much nicer and modern than the one of the 620. If they came out with the 620 layout after having built in the same hull the layout of your link, I wonder what were they thinking....

Ouch thats the 630. Blame me for multi tasking http://newimages.yachtworld.com/res...0320091646_11.jpg&w=924&h=693&t=1408224577000
And 620 http://www.alphayachting.com/images/upload/yachtshire697/20101219173841_14.JPG

The layout was not silly, it was one made from an engineering perspective rather then a cabin one.
Hence it felt silly because a year later the Azimut 62 came and it definitely dwarfed it inside.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Ouch thats the 630.

Doesn't look like my 630!

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Doesn't look like my 630!

Indeed thats the 592 which was later named 620.

 

[MapisM]

Mmm... According to a bit of googling I just made, the above layout is actually of the F650.
Re. the 620 with its half center cabin, well, if you say it was designed like that for engineering reasons I take your word for it.
But 'fiuaskme, considering that it's the same 5.1m wide hull of the 175, I'd rather have the classic 175 layout than the one of the 620...