Price Outlook?

[MapisM]

[ QUOTE ]
Mmm, I thought you'd support your local manufacturer. Obviously not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should I, regardless of whether they deserve to be supported or not?
Just because they are my "neighbours"?
See, when I browse this forum, it's because I hope to find some interesting and unbiased viewpoints from other peeps sharing my hobby, hence that's what I also try to give in return.
That might be unusual, in a world where we get used to think that any opinion is always driven by more or less hidden personal interests, but - believe it or not - that's my approach. And it'll be never influenced by my evaluation of the builder we're talking about (which in this case is overall good, btw).

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's safe to say that if a company like Mitsubishi made it and a company like the Ferretti group bought an exclusive licence, then the thing works.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can only quote from one of your previous posts: Wow, that's a sweeping generalisation.
Would it have been safe to say that if a company like De Havilland made the Comet, then the thing works?...
Examples are endless. Corporations do make big mistakes sometimes.

I fully agree on the final part of your post, though.
Not only when you say that you'd want a demo (I actually suggested that!), but also when you don't see why it shouldn't work on boats.
See, I never said it doesn't, in fact. What I said is that the video gives no or irrelevant evidence about that.
It's actually the video and its comments that I'd classify as awful (in reply to your question linking to it, btw), and I dare anyone to make objections.
My only criticism addressed to the equipment itself was related to current requirements, and that was based on numbers.

I can assure you that if and when I'll have the opportunity to try the equipment or (more likely) to hear unbiased opinions from reliable independent sources, I'll report that, if anyone will be interested.
And that will be neither influenced by nationality nor brands.

 

[Gludy]

Mike
My last SD boat was Class A rated.

My next once is and conforms to Lloyds - in fact it confroms the the highest classification standards in the world.

My last planing boat of the same size was class B rated and I do not know of any planing boats that are class A. I am sure there must be some examples but they are not the norm.

As a percentage D and SD boats have higher rating than planing boats.

In a nutshell that is why I think that D and SD boats are on average better sea boats.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Hi Gludy
there is some A rated planning boats around, especially coming from Italy
Ferretti and most of Ferretti Group boats, Raffaelli, Carnevali (over 15 mtrs), but also the more custom builders like San Lorenzo etc all usually get an A or even many like the Gozzi (Aprea Mare or similar) get an A
in Italy many customers give it a high importance
to speak personally I have had a few customers falling in love with the luxurous Fairline 50 Phantom i have for sale only not to conclude and jump to a Class A rated Raffaelli 52 Maestrale
as for the ARG Mitsubishi I can testify they are impressive and work as good as a normal ST
a year ago I was ancored next to a Ferretti 731, Canados 80 and a Pershing 56
a huge boat wash comes by moving quite a bit the Canados but making the Ferretti and the Pershing unmoveable, speaking to the captain he said it is impressive how they improve anchoring comfort etc

I think if the system wasn't so good Ferretti would not had done the extension for esclusive contract for another 2 years which I think is valid till 2009 now, I also have to admit that in my experience with ST they also quiter

I think both of these huge companies Ferretti and Mits have a big reputation and if they launch a product it should work

D and SD boats far from being better seaboats IMO have a more comfortable adequate speed in high seas, which makes life much easier for the average boater in heavy weather

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought somebody might say that. The hull was described to me by an Elegance salesman as semi planing and certainly when you see them at speed, the hull does'nt seem to lift out of the water as much as a typical planing hull. Also I believe most Elegances have top speeds well below 30kts or need monster engines to get to 30kts which tends to suggest the hulls are designed more for slower speeds
There are quite a few Elegances here in Majorca. They are not well known to UK buyers. What does the market think of them? Good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

having taken a few Italians on board of them and trialed a few. most Italians see them as cheap imitations for Falcon and Sanlorenzo or similar, with more spacious interior but not that superior ride
I think most of them reach or are close to the 30 knot mark, and if I remeber correctly there hull is a variable deep v in most cases with about 30 deg forward section and flat 10 deg aft, I dont remeber that they have a keel in the middle also

I would still call that hull a planning hull which can do comfortable cruising between 15 - 20 knots

 

[MapisM]

Did you have a chance to try the ARG at displacement speed in F5+ sea?
That's where I'd expect them to be not as effective as fin stabs, though that's just my guess, I must say.

Re. D and SD boats "far from being better seaboats", do you mean that you'd rather be in northern atlantic in winter on the first than on the second of the boats below? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
(LOA is actually similar, it's the image size which is different)

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Hi Mapis
different boats I admit
I like the 1st one much, tough in this case you might be right better on the second for an Atlantic ocean trip, I dont think the Pershing also has that range, still dont think the bow is low for the Pershing 90 cause its pretty high for a boat of this type

I dont think most Ferretti do need it in a Force 5 sea cause they can still plain, but I do think they work may be not as effective as fin stabilizers, it shows cause they are used on the Navetta series which is a SD boat

 

[MapisM]

[ QUOTE ]
in this case you might be right better on the second for an Atlantic ocean trip

[/ QUOTE ]Fair enuf.
That's why, in a nutshell, D (particularly) and SD hulls (most of them), when compared to P hulls, actually are better seaboats.
Of course we are generalizing a lot here, there are many P boats I'd be much more confortable and safe with, compared to some taiwanese towers, as someone else called them...
But if any generalisation could be done re.seaworthyness, then I'd rank D hulls first, followed by SD and (not so distant actually) P hulls. Surely not the other way round.

All that said, I can obviously understand why the P90 is a boat you like...! Who wouldn't?
Though in the previous example, I'd always opt for the Aleutian, regardless of whether I should cross the ocean or go for a swim outside the marina.
After all, if I must rush also when at sea, then I'd rather work and try to earn some money...
...and on the other hand, if I'm looking for some adrenalyn, nothing can beat a small lake boat capable of making rings around any Pershing!

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

the problem is this Mapis...

that many planning boats or the A-category ones can handle quite a Force 5 with good speed and comfort
boats like
Maiora
Canados
Ferretti (persh, riva etc)
Falcon
San Lorenzo
Couach Yachts
some of the Brits
Posillipo (riz, italcraft, diano)
etc etc
just to give some indication of popular GRP MY can handle a head sea Force 5 at about 20 knots some in better way then others but the comfort is there, not to mention that in general it goes better in the other directions
so how many Yacht people really are ready to go out in a worse sea then that,
I think it is pretty nill if you say it to me
I think most Planning hulls with there planning speed suffer in a Force 5/6 + head sea
but in reality how many of us would go in such a weather

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Yup sitting on a Cat A planing boat right now. All Ferrettis are plated Cat A. But IMHO, this RCD category business is a bit of a sham because the process is largely by self certification and, in any case, if your Cat A plated boat falls over in a F6, who are you going to sue anyway? Some tin pot sales co worth nothing

 

[petem]

[ QUOTE ]
Re. D and SD boats "far from being better seaboats", do you mean that you'd rather be in northern atlantic in winter on the first than on the second of the boats below? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
(LOA is actually similar, it's the image size which is different)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but I know which one would be the better bird puller!

Pete

 

[MapisM]

I agree that any CE-A planing boat can handle a relatively rough sea, but the confort just can't compare with a similar size D/SD boat with stabs, obviously cruising at lower speeds.
I can make you a real-life example from a few years ago.
Crossing the Kvarner channel, heading SE towards Losinj.
Just 15 miles or so of open sea, but a fresh bora (NE wind) can quickly build up 2+ meters short waves, hitting the boat from quarter bow at the beginning, to quarter aft at the end. Which is what happened that morning.
Nice day otherwise, and in fact I didn't even consider to head back and wait for better conditions, though I couldn't see any other mobo around, just a few yotties.
A couple of miles after leaving the Istrian coast, I saw a flybridge following us, on the same route. After half an hour or so, they took over us. It was a Raffaelli Maestrale (CE-A, same LOA as my boat), cruising at 12 to 14kts (almost planning, but not quite, throwing water all around).
We were keeping our normal cruising speed, 8kts and a half or so.
At Losinj, the helmsman recognised our boat and came to ask us about the cruise.
He described the conditions of his trip as scary, not allowing him to go any faster than that, with spray often reaching the flybridge and helming manually all the time.
But his crew preferred to stay sit on the flybridge, firmly grabbing handrails, rather than "risking" to move anywhere else.
He even told that they would have headed back, if they weren't on a tight holiday schedule.
Frankly, I think that his assessment was exaggerated, maybe because he lacked experience of similar conditions, which were probably still good enougn to reach 18 or 20 kts, with a more stable cruise.
Anyway. Upon his request about our trip, I explained him that just after they took over us, I handed over the helm to swmbo (just to keep an eye around, with the autopilot taking care of the route) and went down for a shower, while our guests where preparing some food for breakfast, which we had before reaching the destination.
He started laughing, and he couldn't stop for minutes. I wasn't able to convince him that I wasn't joking.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

I agree he lacked experience the Raffaelli 52 Maestrale is a very solid planning boat for its LOA, may be also better then a Ferretti and I am sure if he did 20 knots things would have gone better I agree with that
as you might know as much as me, some inexperienced MB buy there first boat and dont know anyting about the sea and this is what happens in these circumstanses

BTW what is your boat I am deadly curisous about this?

 

[kimhollamby]

The problem with generalisms

Stability is a wonderful thing to start to debate.

You quite quickly get into issues not only surrounding righting moment (how far over the boat can go without flipping -- which after all is probably what a lot of people think they are worried about when talking about stability) and stiffness (how quickly the boat stiffens up in the roll -- which is probably what a lot of stomachs are responding to and nervous brains are thinking about when the S word is used).

Stick a lot of machinery out to the sides of a boat that carries a lot of beam and, perhaps, whacking great big chine flats, and it is going to cause your casual passengers a lot less immediate stress even at slow speeds (or even in the marina) than a narrower beam vessel with a deeper keel and its machinery (and perhaps some of its tankage too) on the centreline.

Arguably a planing sportscruiser at 7 knots is going to feel a hell of a lot 'safer' to those aboard compared to a tall-structured round-bilge trawler yacht without stabilisers fitted (or with them broken). Which of the two is more 'seaworthy, which of them would flip first in a beam sea and ultimately which would make the crew seasick first is all a part of a fun debate that really only works if you start looking at individual examples of boats and, for that matter, how they are crewed and being handled.

In fact it's also tough to start thinking about what really comprises a displacement, semi-displacement or planing design in this day and age. Take for example modern 'displacement' designs (among them many Dutch steel) that carry hard chine, flattish stern section forms. They could easily pass muster in plastic for semi-displacement or, with some sprayrails bunged on and less or no keel, for planing even.

And if ever anyone wants a reminder that formulaic ideas about displacement, semi-displacement or planing designs complying with a set idea went out with the Ark (or soon afterwards when Noah was gifted diesels two-by-two)...take a look at the Corvette 32 next time you are in a boatyard with one up on props

So surely this should in fact be much more a debate about hull design, not notional categorisation of type?

Ditto statements about the fuel consumption behaviour of semi displacement designs. Many of the boats in this notional category that I remember seeing test results for had no particular point of efficiency once hull speed was exceeded...they simply burned proportionately more fuel for each incremental gain in speed -- the mpg graph was often a remarkably straight line upwards towards the inefficient as speed was increased.

Of course there are exceptions, just as there are often major differences between planing hull designs (and even the same planing hulls with different engines) on points of efficiency.

Probably only one truth holds common, that the only way future motorboat owners are going to be able to stretch considerable gains out of fuel is to get used to single digit numbers recording above the decimal point on their logs or to provide the impetus for market creation of very low resistance hulls. Fat, heavy, semi displacement boats will only be a future bonus if used very slowly, otherwise in many respects they represent a backward step in terms of science, whatever their other obvious ownership merits.

 

[MapisM]

Well, I don't think that the differences I described are particularly connected to my specific boat.
I am sure that any heavy, full displacement, stabilized trawler would have behaved similarly.
This is the web site of the builder, anyway.
Mind, the site is even more handicraft-style than the boats themselves... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Gludy]

Re: The problem with generalisms

[ QUOTE ]
Fat, heavy, semi displacement boats will only be a future bonus if used very slowly, otherwise in many respects they represent a backward step in terms of science, whatever their other obvious ownership merits.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the future of crusing boating with higher and higher fuel costs is ..... slow boating. Then its nice to have the option of the occasional burst of high speed to make it in time for the lock or run from some weather.

There are many SD boats that show an almost flat mpg curve when past the displacement speed - not a proportional increase. proportional in GPH yes but not mpg.

Which hull would you choose for say a cruise around the UK when fuel is over £5 per gallon?

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't think that the differences I described are particularly connected to my specific boat.
I am sure that any heavy, full displacement, stabilized trawler would have behaved similarly.
This is the web site of the builder, anyway.
Mind, the site is even more handicraft-style than the boats themselves... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks I know the boats a bit Cantiere Azzurro, never had the occasion to board any of them
but I know them thanks to Italian mag Nautica
they look very nice
wood construction hepls, as you might know as much as me or even more! of the advantages of wooden construction over GRP especailly in not stimulating conditions
thanks for the info
BTW where they always in Marotta or where in Naples before?

 

[MapisM]

Well, actually the wood advantages are mainly related to liveabord conditions.
Wood insulates well from temperature and humidity excursions (stays cooler in sunny days, warmer and dryer in cold and humid nights). Also, the noise is very well absorbed (when sleeping in forward cabin at anchor, you aren't bothered by the noise of waves splashing against the bow).
Besides, being surrounded by wood gives a unique feeling; even the best wooden interiors of non-wooden boats just don't match the sensation.
For liveaboard, nothing can match a wooden boat imho.

But with regard to the hull characteristics, actually there are both GRP and steel trawlers, with similar hull shapes, which are equally (or even more) seaworthy boats.
There are characteristics like strength and fire resistance, for example, where steel is much better than anything else. Which has its importance in long passages requiring night navigation, where hitting containers, big buoys, etc. - albeit unlikely - is a realistic possibility.

Re.the location, they've always been based in Marotta afaik.

 

[MapisM]

Anyone with mast and sails, I guess!

[ QUOTE ]
Which hull would you choose for say a cruise around the UK when fuel is over £5 per gallon?

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[MapisM]

Re: The problem with generalisms

You're raising some quite interesting points here, well worth a specific thread.
But it's particularly your last comment which intrigued me.
Because you're right, actually: fat and heavy boats are a ridiculous backward step in terms of science.
Commercial ferries are increasingly fast, and our grandchildren will possibly travel on airfoil boats (planes?) cruising (flying?) above sea waves, at speeds we currently don't even dream of.
But that's related to the transportation business, where payload and speed are key concepts.
Now, will pleasure boating follow the same route? Maybe.
Or maybe not, if boaters will increasingly appreciate that it's all about the quality of the time spent either living onboard or cruising, rather than reaching as many places as possible within a constrained timeframe.
Which in turn means also less money spent on fuel, though I don't think this will be the key factor.
Now, if such awareness will increase, then any advance in science will be much less relevant for pleasure boaters, because fat and heavy boats will actually match their real needs even better than anything else.
In fact, we already saw old tugs and icebreakers restructured as luxury pleasure boats by HNW people fed up by a life on the fast lane.
And other than installing huge flat screens with sat tv, gangways with blue led lights, marble tables, jacuzzis and other amenities, what else can be a bigger backward step than a dismissed tug?!...

 

[Gludy]

Re: The problem with generalisms

Ferries and such need speed and its understandable for both speed and efficiency that they are often Cats.

Kim does not put up an alternative leisure boat forward to the slow fat boats - if speed is the answer then surely it has to be cats with hydrofoils?

I have switched to SD and for the sort time I had one and ingnoring the breakdowns etc, I enjoyed getting there as well as being there. I personaly would never dream of going back to the hard ride of a planing boat.

For many their time is limited so its natural that they need a fast boat to get there and back in a weekend etc.

I really think that many have missed the point about choosing to use the same mpg as a planing boat but going say 25% slower and in more comfort or choosing to go very comfortably at very good mpg figures at slow speeds. That is why I have swtiched over to SD boats.

I would like to know what sort of hull shape Kim thinks will dominate over the next ten years for cruising MoBos.