Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Evolution of the hullform

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Evolution of the hullform
jimh posted 12-05-2001 11:38 PM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
Every year about this time the boating magazines are filled with the new year's models, and often these new boats are touted for their new hullforms. It seems there is no limit to the improvements that can be made in the shape of the bottom of a fiberglass boat hull from year to year. If you have last year's hullform, you are missing the benefits of the new design, not to mention the precise symmetry of its 6-axis CAD milling machine produced plug and maybe a new drink holder location.

In contrast, I was very surprised to learn that several military combat aircraft in current use by the United States were designed as far back as 1952!

One example of an older design aircraft is the A-6 Intruder. The airframe of this attack bomber was developed in 1952. It is still being made [Opps..maybe not; see below]. It saw extensive use in Desert Storm. It is probably being deployed to Afganistan, too.

Of course, the aircraft is not identical to the 1952-version. It has much better engines, much more sophisticated electronics, improvements in all mechanical systems, and no doubt many improvements from suggestions from feedback by pilots using the aircraft in its various missions. But the design of the airframe is really the same as it was in 1952. The wings and the tail and the fuselage and all the major structures are the same. The cockpit layout, the canopy, the side-by-side seating all remain the same. The aircraft is made from aluminum and built the same way it was 40 years ago.

I find this rather interesting. You would think that a product intended for military use and in combat would require a more up-to-date design than a 49-year old airframe.

I mention all this because it seems to have many parallels with boats. The manufacturers present this notion that every year you can do something to the hullform and it will be better than last year's hullform.

An old Whaler hull is much like an A-6 airframe. It was well designed for the intended purpose, and it can be made modern with the use of better engines, better electronics, better mechanical systems, and updated seating and acommodations. But you don't have to discard the hullform just because it has been a few years since it was designed.

If a 49-year old A-6 Intruder airframe design is still good enough to go to war, I guess a 20-year old Boston Whaler 18-Outrage hullform is still good enough to go fishing.

Tom W Clark posted 12-06-2001 12:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
jimh, I agree! Endurance is a sign of quality. The Porsche 911 was introduced in 1964 for the 1965 model year and continued in production for over 30 years, receiving sensible improvements every year. Those cars, young or old still hold their value on the used market much as Whalers do. Hmmm...
Blackeagle posted 12-06-2001 12:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for Blackeagle  Send Email to Blackeagle     
I hate to burst your bubble Jim, but the A-6 Intruder is not in production any more. It isn't even in service any longer, the last Intruder squadron was disbanded in 1996. An electronic warfare variant called the EA-6B Prowler is still in service (though not in production). The Prowler uses a modified airframe which has been stretched to accommodate 2 additional electronic warfare officers.

However, your point regarding the life of airframe designs is well taken and there are several airframes in service more than four decades after they were originally designed. One example is the Air Force's B-52 bomber, which first flew in the early '50s and is currently in action in Afghanistan. Another example is the Navy's P-3 Orion patrol aircraft, which is based on the Lockheed Electra turboprop airliner. However, neither of these aircraft is still in production (though the P-3 did make it into the '90s).

The oldest military airframe design currently in production is the C-130 Hercules, has the longest production run of any aircraft in history and is still coming off the Lockheed lines as the C-130J. The 'J' model has new engines, avionics and other internal systems and some really funky looking propellors, but the basic aerodynamic design is the same as it was 40+ years ago.

triblet posted 12-06-2001 12:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
47 years ago. The C-130 first flew 08/23/54.
What's really interesting is to look at the
service life of a lot of military aircraft
back then. Three years. Five years.
The C-130's gonna be in production for 50
years. Half way back to the Wright Bros.

Some things are timeless.

Chuck

Whalerdan posted 12-06-2001 08:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     
The only reason the C-130 is still in production is pork barrel politics. The military already has all they need, but congress want to keep jobs for their constituents who build them. It has nothing to do with how great the plane is. the C-17 is far superior, and alot more expensive. Kind of like a new boat?
jimh posted 12-06-2001 08:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The P-3 descended from the Lockheed Electra? Wow, the Electra was the plane that Amelia Earhart was flying around the world in the 1930's.
jameso posted 12-06-2001 09:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for jameso  Send Email to jameso     
To WhalerDan, i will try to say this in a nice manner,,,,B!S!, I have flown on many C-130 aircraft and several C-17's. For the mission for which it was designed and for what is does the C-130 is without equal. Carries no pork, but I think this is subject for a different forum.
Jim Armstrong
jameso posted 12-06-2001 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for jameso  Send Email to jameso     
jimh, your observations concerning hull design are interesting, let me quote from a magazine article I recently read,

"When Glenn Curtiss took off from the water near San Diego Calif, in 1911, in the world's first seaplane, his machine was equipped with a single boxlike, flat bottomed wooden float. A little later, the hydroplane step was introduced increasing it efficiency. The next advance was the substitution of a V bottom for the flat one.

In landing the knife edge of the V cut into the water and reduced the shock. But suction around the side of the first V-floats threw spray into the propeller and cockpit. So spray strips, like automobile mudguards, were attached to the sides of the pontoons. however, a new type of V-bottom was made, by curving the lies of the V inward in the form of two scallops the spray producing suction was eliminated.

The latest float, such as were placed on the Lockheed monoplane flown to the Orient by Col. Charles Lindberg, have a double scallop botton. This give a minimum spay in running through rough water.

The two characteristics of a good pontoon or flying boat hull are "clean running"-that is, throwing up a little spray-and having the least amount of resistance in traveling through the water."

This is an accurate description of the modern tri-hull or cathedral hull. I find this especially interesting since it was written By Captain Frank T. Courtney, and published in Popular Science magazine December 1931!
It would be nearly 30 years later that Dougherty and other designers used this for pleasure boats. So your Whaler hull was prototyped on flying boats in the 1920's!
Happy Whalin,,,Jim Armstrong

Dr T posted 12-06-2001 10:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dr T  Send Email to Dr T     
A couple of thoughts. One reason a number of military airplanes of old designs are still in service is because the airframe is only one component of the mission--the basic transportation part. The rest of the mission is to carry a payload to a specific place so that the payload can do its job.

Carrying weapons is only one of many payloads. On a number of aircraft, including the EA-6B and the RC-135 (in its many variations), the primary mission is to carry an electronics system to a specific place so that the system will have the best view of the battlespace for its system to operate.

For these aircraft, the airframe is a miniscule cost compared to the cost of the systems carried on board, and in many cases integrated into the physical structure. The cost of stripping out the electronic systems to install on a new aircraft is horrendus. It is financially better to send the airframe to a rebuild facility and rebuild it from scratch (take it completely apart, inspect every thing, and put it back together) so that the aircraft comes out with zero time. Some of these aircraft have well over 1000 hours a year put on them.

On "Old Ideas", I learned a long time ago that there are very few really new ideas. My personal favorite is the Fax machine. The first patent for a Fax was in 1847--and Carl Fredrick Gauss invented a high speed optical communication system a long, long time ago.

tds

TightPenny posted 12-06-2001 10:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for TightPenny  Send Email to TightPenny     
The Orion P3 is a military version of the L188 Electra airliner, which is a four engine passenger airliner

Earharts Electra was a Model 10-B Electra, which she flew on her around the world flight in which she disappeared in 1937. This plane was was a twin engine plane much smaller than the electra which was converted into the Orion.

triblet posted 12-06-2001 11:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
The Earhart aircraft was a Electra 10E, not
10B. The standard Electra was 10A with 450HP
engines. The 10E had 550HP engines. The
10B and 10C had engines of about 450HP also,
but different model engines. There were
about 100 10A's, and about a dozen each
10B, 10C, and 10E.

Chuck

hardensheetmetal posted 12-06-2001 11:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for hardensheetmetal  Send Email to hardensheetmetal     
Wow, I guess people really do watch the shows about war planes on The History Channel!

Dan

GAwhale posted 12-06-2001 12:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for GAwhale  Send Email to GAwhale     
I like to compare airplanes to tennis rackets. They used to all be made out of wood, then aluminum and composite materials came along.

You can't buck technology. However, corrections will be made along the way.

Today there are only two maufacturers of big commercial jets. Boeing likes tradition and giving the pilot ultimate control. The pilot can 'bend' the aircraft exceeding it's designed limits in an emergengy. Airbus like cutting edge technology and giving the computers the final say.

With the recent crash of the American Air Lines A-300 the composite tail of the aircraft should have never sheared off. Right now that gives the Boeing ideology a leg up.

Kelly posted 12-06-2001 12:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
The interesting thing to me about good designs, boat, plane, cars, or anything else, is that at some level, you just know that the design is right. I feel that way about the 17' Classic hull. The length, beam, and the line from bow to stern. I really do like to see it siting there in the carport every evening when I come home. Sometimes I sit in the car looking straight on at the bow for a few moments and marvel at the hull shape and unmistakable smirk. I don't get to use my boat as much as I would like to, but I sure do enjoy it.

Dr. T, It is my understanding that the FBI was using the fax(or something like it) before the telephone was in use, and that after the telephone system went into service, people felt that the fax was no longer necessary.

Kelly

SuburbanBoy posted 12-06-2001 12:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for SuburbanBoy  Send Email to SuburbanBoy     
So if I put a Porsche airplane motor, (based on the flat six 911 motor, and now discontinued) into a GTX I/O, I would have the ultimate classic Whaler? Crossing the boundries of aircraft, automotive and marine treasures.

sub

Dr T posted 12-06-2001 12:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dr T  Send Email to Dr T     
While the FAX did predate the telephone, the FBI did not. The FBI started with J. Edgar Hoover.

The initial use of the technology was the same as it is today: Send a view of a document from one place to the next.

In the movie "It Happened One Night" (it won about 8 Oscars and Clark Gable killed the men's undershirt business in one fell swoop back in the 30's--I definitely recommend), there are a couple of views of the cutting edge technology of the day. One is of an early FAX being used to "Send her picture out across the wire!". The other is of an autogyro (a old idea being replicated in ultralight aircraft).

Kelly posted 12-06-2001 01:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
Dr. T.

I thought the FBI was created by Teddy Rosevelt in 1908 and Hoover did not come along until about 1919. I didn't think the phone system with nation wide long distance was really up and going till about 1913 or later. For that reason, I do think the FBI used the fax for a time to send text and simple images across country until telephone service for these distances was available and reliable.

Kelly

Tsuriki BW posted 12-06-2001 02:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tsuriki BW  Send Email to Tsuriki BW     
FBI was created in 1908. Hoover became director in 1924. The "Hull form" of the FBI has changed since then....good or bad..?

http://www.fbi.gov/fbinbrief/historic/history/historymain.htm

Tsuriki

Dr T posted 12-06-2001 03:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dr T  Send Email to Dr T     
I knew I should have double checked that. J. Edgar created his own hullform for the Bureau.

Has the hullform changed since?

tds

lhg posted 12-06-2001 04:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Regarding the A-6 Intruder, my first cousin was a Navy carrier based A-6 pilot in Vietnam. He and his co-pilot were shot down by a Russian SAM over Laos in 1968, at the age of 24, and never found. If he were alive today, he'd be 57.

But what does all of this have to do with the title of this thread, which is about the new Whaler hullforms? And I agree with JimH, just because a hullform is new does not mean it's better, or worse for that matter. Just a different set of design criteria. A soft ride, while running full bore into a stiff head wind go-fast style, seems to be the most popular criteria these days. If it works for Sea Ray and Baja, why not Whaler?

kamml posted 12-08-2001 09:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamml  Send Email to kamml     
Just a couple of off topic remarks. As a small boy of 11 I flew in a 4 engine Electra from Binghamton NY to St Louis Ms. And as a young engineer I ran a set of Fax machines for Singer Simulation back when the first Skylab was being developed. We were developing simulators for the crew. Those machines were noisy, cranky, crude, required special paper and took 8 - 12 minutes (if my memory serves me) to produce a grainy image. That goes back a little further, but just by a few years, maybe 7 or so, than my current Whaler. They sure have improved fax equipment, but my Whaler still sails on in her original design just as well as her first day in the water.
Ken
Dr T posted 12-09-2001 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dr T  Send Email to Dr T     
Pretty soon, we will be discussing the notebooks of Leonardo......:-)
zpeed7 posted 12-09-2001 03:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
I know this maybe a crazy idea, but couldn't someone, at least in theory, buy the pantents from BW for a few of the classics. Let's say the 13Sprt, 17Mtk, 18Out, and 22Out. And start a small semi-custom boat factory? I would be inclined to think that there would be enough people to buy quite a few of them if marketed correctly and buit properly (just look at Contender). The boats could be updated, but you'd still have the most important ingredient, that great ridding hull.

What do you guys think?

Tsuriki BW posted 12-09-2001 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tsuriki BW  Send Email to Tsuriki BW     
Maybe approach Bill Gates...

Didn't he buy the notebooks of Leonardo ......?

Tsuriki

lhg posted 12-10-2001 12:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
It's an intersting idea many have thought about. But Brunswick would never do it, for fear of the competition! Look how badly Edgewater hurt the company's sales, and still is. Besides, these hulls are still a profit center for the CPD.

Why they won't build them in the Recreational division is a mystery to me. They'll tell you nobody would buy one. That's how bad their marketing research must be.

It's intersting to think about what a different company Boston Whaler would be today if they had been bought in 1990 by a classic "Down East" company like Hinckley, instead of a shoe company. "Progress", as is often used as the excuse for the current Whaler "look", would have taken a completely different direction.

TightPenny posted 12-10-2001 12:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for TightPenny  Send Email to TightPenny     
Sorry Triblet, knowing there was a big difference in the two planes, I did a quick google search to get the model numbers, and came up with the 10-A. I stand corrected
zpeed7 posted 12-10-2001 07:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
I agree lhg, if Edgewater can sell them, why can't WHALER?

Whalerdan posted 12-11-2001 07:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     
I thought patents were only good for so many years. The classics, I bet, are getting close to that limit. We don't really need th molds, just a good splash job, and build it right.
Peter posted 12-11-2001 08:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
To the extent that Whaler had and could have had patents on the hull forms for the 1980s vintage Outrage/Revenge, they would have expired by now. I searched for "hull" patents issued in the name of Whaler and could only find a design patent covering what looks like the Rage hull form.

The design of a hull, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under the Copyright laws. See 17 USC 1301. This is a relatively new set of laws and based on what I've read, would appear to be inapplicable to the 1980 vintage Outrage/Revenge hull form.

Louie Kokinis posted 12-11-2001 08:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
But...if they offer the old hull design in the rec models Whaler would loose out on all the new markets they've tapped into.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about; the old hulls are more expensive to build, they don't offer the creature comforts today’s consumer is looking for, and most are still available.

Other than price why would anyone purchase Edgewater vs a Commercial Whaler?

Maybe they don't advertise the availability of the old styles enough, but getting rid of the newer family friendly boats (IMO) would be a mistake.

I also wonder just how many of us (diehards) would fork out the extra dollars for the CPD boat. Sure, most talk about it, some rebuild old ones, but I haven’t seen many CPD boats out there or on this web site.

My point is that talk is cheap - most people are not willing to spend the extra dollars!

Louie

Blackeagle posted 12-11-2001 01:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Blackeagle  Send Email to Blackeagle     
How does CPD pricing compare to the recreational models? I assume there's a bit of a premium, but how much?
Buckda posted 12-11-2001 01:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
...and to expand on Blackeagle's question, can you get a CPD model in white instead of gray?

That 22 Guardian looks like it could be a dandy once you get it rigged how you want it.

lhg posted 12-11-2001 05:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Louie - Although I always great respect your opinions and ideas, I have to disagree with on the point that today's Whalers offer more creature comforts, especially in the Outrage line with which I am most familiar.

I have had my (admittedly very well equipped) Outrage 25 alongside a brand new 26 Outrage, and as for creature comforts, the new 26 can't hold a candle! Here are a few of the items of importance, at least to me:

All weather protection: The 26 can't compare to BW's full Mills canvas system. The only thing you can get from BW for it is a sun top, or tee top enclosure. It's strictly a fair weather boat when it comes to protection from the harsh elements.

Cruising/sleeping aboard considerations: Easy to sleep on mine for weeks at a time, all weather conditions (can sleep 4). Can't be done with a 26 at all. The difference in creature comforts here is huge!

Front of console seating: The 25 Classics came with a big comfortable Igloo 162qt cooler seat. The 26 has a ridiculous little seat barely hoding two.

Pilot seat. Nothing compares to my RPS raised 6". This is superior for trolling also, since you can sit facing backward and still handle the boat, and get to a line quickly. Leaning posts not real popular with the women, either, unless you can sit on them.

Head: the 26 has big bathroom in the console, but I have the Porta Potti, (rarely used) under the forward shelter with privacy curtain. The 25 has much more useable deck square footage to move about/fish in than the 26, more sunning space, space for deck chairs, etc. Plus a large stand up private space in the bow for changing clothes, etc.
These are creature comforts that count.

Visibility: Forward visibility with the smaller console and lower bow profile is greatly enhanced, and much safer.

Swim platform: I don't have the integrated "climb aboard" platform, but instead the transom bracket. Not quite as easy, but on the Northern Great lakes, not much of an issue. Still works for us, however, once or twice a season.

Fishability: I consider this a creature comfort for the people on board fishing. Here there is no comparison. The 25 wins hands down, epsecially if you're running 4 downriggers like we do in the Great Lakes.
The euro transom is nightmare for trolling and rear facing downsriggers off the stern.
No fishing boat worth a damn has it, including the megabuck Sportfishermans. Nor does the Whaler Defiance! The lower hull sides also are helful in fishing, netting, gaffing and bringing your catch in. The integrated 26 swim platform is worthless for fishing except in calm seas, and in heavier seas, a downright dangerous and worthless place to be. I came very close to falling off the transom of a 26 while out in 3' seas. And the most important feature of a good fishing boat is to have the floor space to move around and deal with your lines and catch. The 25 has much more space in this important regard.

Stability in rough seas while fishing: As a person who gets seasick I consider this a REAL creature comfort. The 25 is a more stable fishing platform for anything you might be doing regarding catching a fish and setting lines. This is why the Coast Guard likes them for gun boats also.

Live bait well. Both boats have these.

Storage compartments: The four front wells in the 25 hold more than the 26 has.

So, if you ask me, there is no comparison on creature comforts between and old 25 and a new 26. And I have looked very carefully, side by side.

Isn't all this why you opted for a 22, anyway?

zpeed7 posted 12-11-2001 05:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
IMHO..., at least in the past, if you wanted a "family friendly", boat you bought a Sea Ray or something like it. If you wanted a tough, high performance, simple, pretty much undestructible boat, a boat that could take it all and keep on going, you bought a Whaler. That was the main reason why people bought Whalers and that's why I think most people in this thread don't support the new designs.

Some things in life just don't go together, and I think this is one of them. Like a "high performance" minivan. Or a "family friendly" Porsche 911. Who cares if you can't fit 3 adults in the back seat? You buy a Porsche because it's a Porsche. A car that has EVOLVED over the years through great engineering and passion from it's employees. Kinda like the Whaler from the past...

SuburbanBoy posted 12-11-2001 06:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for SuburbanBoy  Send Email to SuburbanBoy     
Even Porsche has compromised their original vision. They will be selling an expensive high-performance SUV next year. Cayane, is the model name. Along the lines of the BMW, Mercedes and Acura SUV's. More huge sedan than off-road or tow vehicle. But the difference is Porsche still makes 911's for road use. Telling us to go to CPD for the classic style is like going to Porsche's racing department for a street car.

sub

Louie Kokinis posted 12-11-2001 11:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
Blackeagle / Buckda: They will build them in any color, how much you’re willing to shrink the wallet will be the largest obstacle : (

Larry: My mistake, I shouldn’t have made a blanket statement like that, and in no way did I mean to offend anyone(especially you).

I agree that your Whaler (after some thought and a bit of work) is a more comfortable and more functional boat than the 26. It’s also true that I’ve stated many times that the new hulls (IMO) don’t compare to the performance of the older ones (like comparing a sports car to a sporty sedan).

As for the Old 22 vs the 23, I think the 23 wins in most every department except for things that are important to me like a low freeboard (for catch and release) and performance. I should have stated that I was comparing my boat to a newer version of the same.

That said, I have a couple friends who bought new Whalers. Both are very happy, and both don’t like mine.

Suburbanboy: I see your point. But, I don’t think it really applies here. CPD can produce an exact replica – in beige, with stainless rails, and even with the old console and leaning post – and no special licensing or DOT approval is required (as would be from a race vehicle produced from Porsche). The real question is just how many people would be willing to put out the cash for a CPD boat? Or, how many Contender or Regulator owners even know that they could’ve bought a CPD Whaler instead?

Louie

PS Jim has created a great site for all of us to share our ideas, but all the squabbling and bashing makes Newcomers (with new designs) feel unwelcome. We are getting a reputation at other forums – unfortunately it’s not a very good one.

lhg posted 12-12-2001 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Louis, appreciate your comments. Now you've got me thinking about the 22 vs the newer 23.

I have also driven both of these for comparison. I remember being impressed that the 23 was a bigger feeling, and much deeper, boat than the 22, but like you, I prefer the lower freeboard, and the feeling of not standing at the bottom of a bathtub. I find the deep interior sides confining, especially for fishing.

But anyway, on the creature comfort issue again, don't under estimate the potential of a 22. It's just a matter of what options are included. I think your 22 and Kingfish's 22 are the best examples of these boats I've yet to see. Yours is obviously bare bones, hard nosed utilitarian for your purposes. But Kingfish's 22 has a lot of the same creature comforts as mine, and once again the current 23 is no match for his setup. So more than anything, it's the potential of the design for various setups that, to me and yourself, gives the 22 the edge. It's fine lines are pretty hard to beat, also. When a 23 year old design still looks contemporary, you know it's a good design.

lhg posted 12-12-2001 04:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Louie - I know you're not a "Louis" Sorry about the typo!!
Louie Kokinis posted 12-13-2001 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
Larry: I agree.

There are also other items like the inability to mount twins (and or properly mount a kicker), the extra weight, higher HP requirement, etc……but the guys who own them love them too.

My point was that although many here say they would buy a “new” old style Whaler, I really doubt they would fork out the extra dollars – even for a recreational model. My reasoning is that the CPD boats are better than the old classics in every way, yet Whaler only produce a handful for personal use.


Louie

Buckda posted 12-13-2001 03:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
How much of a premium are they asking for CPD units? (i.e. when the outrage was still in production, what was the approximate mark-up between a standard outrage and a guardian?)

Is it really that big of a whallop? I mean, I figure if you're already gonna drop $60K on a boat, you can afford to spend an extra few K to get what you really want (if you have to buy it new, that is).

lhg posted 12-13-2001 06:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
You can buy a brand new 2002 17' Alert, with Whaler White hull color upgrade ($800), fiberglass side console, side rails, steering, starboard seats and hold downs, for about $7500-$8000.

I would order it without the seats, and make them instead out of varnished mahogany, and you'd have a pretty nice new "17 Sport" Whaler. Drop a nice little 50 or 60HP engine on it, and you'd have a great inshore/lake rig.

Buckda posted 12-13-2001 06:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
LHG -

It seems to me that if you're a little handy, and willing to put a little sweat equity into your boat (plus a lot of help from the folks on this forum) - you could put yourself together a pretty nice classic hull rig for less than buying a new dauntless or even a Montauk. You could buy in the fall, put the sweat equity in during the off-season and show up to the marina in the spring with a cherry boat with classic styling and new (and heavy duty) construction.

Only drawback would be the additional weight of the CPD hulls....but if you're going to get a lot of use out of the boat...and plan to keep it for life..you'll be glad you've got the extra construction after years of pounding on the lake.

I guess not that many people are willing to put that kind of work in, but think about it...a virgin hull for you to set up just how you want it. And for you guys who are dads....it could be a great chance to spend some quality time on a father-son project.

Okay...I've convinced me...this could be the way to go!

zpeed7 posted 12-13-2001 10:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
That's a great idea!

Does anyone know how much a virgin 22' Classic CPD hull costs?
jimh posted 12-14-2001 12:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I am getting to the this thread a little late with this comment, but I have to respond to LHG and his contention that his old fashion 25-Outrage has more creature comforts:

How many molded in drink holders do you have on that 25-Outrage? :-)

lhg posted 12-14-2001 04:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
JimH: None, thank God. Nor do I have a rod holder mounted drop-in cocktail table.

But I have installed a black plastic fold-up drink holder on each side of the Montauk sized console. These work remarkably well in this location. I prefer the flexibility of placing them WHERE I WANT THEM, rather than what some designer thinks I need. Built-in is not always best.

Buckda posted 12-14-2001 05:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
Zspeed -
Because I am an absolutele research freak, I've already contacted the CPD for a brochure on their guardian line and asked for a price list. (truth be told, I'm still a couple years out on purchasing any boat...I can always use the "family" boat....but it's always good to have a solid base of information to be working from when you are ready to buy)

Go to the Website and e-mail them for information on it. They'll send it along. I sent a message to Betsi and should see something in the snail mail box in a few weeks.
Dave

zpeed7 posted 12-15-2001 12:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
Thanks Buckda, I'll get on it... I'm also still a few years away from moving up to the "bigger" boat, but it's always good to know... Also I'm curious....
Louie Kokinis posted 12-16-2001 04:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
These numbers should be close

22 Guardian Base boat: 30,000
Rails 1,000
Beige gel 1,500
129 Gal tank upgrade 600
Console (1-10k range) 1,600
Leaning Post / pedestal (800 -10k range)1,600
Battery Mgmt System (2 bat) 700
Engine pre-rig (single) 800
Tabs 800
Cooler with tie-downs 300
Electronic dist panel / charging syst 1,100
---------------------------------------------
Sub total 40,000

Engine (s) Trailer, compass, electronics, gauges, shipping, and PDI not included.


Notable options:

HD bow eye reinforcement 700
Stern splashwell bulkhead 500
Stainless cutwater 1,200
Dive door 4,000
Radial Arm Davit 1,100
Machine gun tripod 6,200 each

Whaler drive is not available on the 22 (approx 9,000 upgrade for the 25)
Base price on the 25 is approx 4,000 more - options are close or the same price

Baby change tables and drink holders are extra :)

Louie

Louie Kokinis posted 12-16-2001 04:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
OOOPS.

The leaning post price should read 800 - 4,000.

I also forgot to add phenolic backing placement - but most recreational boats really shouldn’t require any extra.

Extra hatches (bomar) and doors are approx 400 each
Bow docking lights (look cool) approx 800
HD T-Top is approx 7,000 incl weather curtains
Salt Water wash down 600
Whaler trailer for the 22 – approx 10,000 - loaded with flush kits and spare tire :)

Louie

zpeed7 posted 12-16-2001 06:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
Thanks for the info Louie!!!
Buckda posted 12-17-2001 07:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
The CPD Guardian is the same hull as the old Outrages - No?

Louie Kokinis posted 12-17-2001 08:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
Buckda: the answer is yes and no :(

The hulls look identical but there are differences. The obvious (regardless of gel color and bow or rails) is the much thicker rub rail, larger fittings including the bow and stern eyes, screws all over the place, and the lack of floor compartments.

What isn’t obvious is the thicker hull, MIL spec wiring and charging system, thicker tank with baffles and high-speed venting (so fast pumps don’t back up), thicker floors, and thicker gunnels. Having said that (and owned both) the Guardian is made for commercial applications, so cosmetic items are not first priority. I still can’t figure if it’s the nominal weight difference, or the lack of compartment lids to bang around (probably the later), but IMO the boat rides better in rough stuff.

If your serious about ordering one I would recommend a trip to the factory, and a dealer who knows and sells CPD products (most of the newer SeaRay dealers don’t).

Buckda posted 12-18-2001 01:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
Louie -
Great information, and I'm sure, good advice. I'm not ready to buy yet...I've spent some time lurking on this site for the past several months just soaking up all the information I can...and trying to determine what model to purchase when I do buy. My father has a restored 22 guardian ('85?) which i can use to assuage my need to be on a whaler from time to time...

You also mentioned something up higher on the thread about not being able to mount twins or a kicker properly on the CPD hulls. What is the reason for this? (transom design?) ...and why did they do that?

I don't mind the extra weight of a hull (not looking to go really fast...just want safety and durability, thus my interest in Whaler..and now, in the CPD)...and it seems like you can set up the floor with DriDek to cover the appearance of all the screws in most places (plus save the deck from spiderweb fractures if you drop something heavy). Did you find the extra deck screws a nuisance on your Guardian?

Louie Kokinis posted 12-18-2001 03:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
Buckda:

"You also mentioned something up higher on the thread about not being able to mount twins or a kicker properly on the CPD hulls."

I was refering to the new hull not the classic or CPD.

"Did you find the extra deck screws a nuisance on your Guardian?"

Not at all, I actually like the look.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.