posted 12-07-2002 12:43 AM ET (US)        

[The boat would be] much like Whaler was in its begining, innovative but classic at the same time. Hinckley managed it and Whaler did, too.

So maybe the world needs somebody to produce the Hinckley of 13 and 17 footers. There is nothing nicer than a large boat with a beautiful tender. Not a rubber raft that never complements the high dollar boat it's on.

posted 12-07-2002 09:51 AM ET (US)            

I really like that idea. I wonder if it can be done without infringing patents.

I, too would like to see a new boat that matched the features of a Classic 17. Luxury yacht appointments, fit, finish and trim. And, of course, a Dougherty designed, unsinkable Whaler hull and the unmatched Whaler RPS.

But, come to think of it, I have one of those. She is only 23 years old, so she is as good as she was when new. Well, no; better because her rails are solid. :)

posted 12-07-2002 05:42 PM ET (US)            

"MANUFACTURE OF PLASIC ARTICLES HAVING SPACED SHELLS WITH REINFORCED FOAM FILLING."

The claim was filed on March 27, 1957.

I don't know what the status of the patent is at this time, but 41-years is a long time for a patent to remain in effect. I think typically they are good for less than 20 years.

Intellectual Property Attorneys may be able to comment on this issue.

There is federal law protecting the shape of boat hulls from being copied, but it only applies to hulls made after a fairly recent date which have been registered.

As I understand it, I am free to cast a mold using an old Boston Whaler hull as a plug, as long as the hull was sold before the effective date of the new "no-splashing" regulations.

If you study the history of Boston Whaler, the company was apparently not operating profitably when they made boats as you describe above. In the late 1980's Boston Whaler boats were loaded with beautiful teak components, had dozens of options available to allow the buyer to customize the boat, and were enjoying perhaps even more favorable reputation than they do now (since they were not tainted with the corporate ownership of Brunswick and Sea Ray).

In addition they were being sold by a strong dealer network, and selling at prices far above the market average.

With all those advantages, they were still losing money. In fact, one former marketing manager told me that at one point the company was losing so much money that the only thing that saved them one year was the sudden popularity of a new model, the RAGE.

See my Reference article at http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/history/whaler.html for more historical information.

According to an article ( http://www.merchant-gould.com/news/newsletters/oym_ss_1999/splash.html ) by John L. Beard, the provisions of the boat hull copyright regulations apply only to boats "made public after October 28, 1998..."

posted 12-08-2002 03:34 PM ET (US)            

A patent applied for after June 7, 1995 expires 20 years after the filing date of application.

A patent applied for on or before June 7, 1995 expires 20 years after the filing date or 17 years after the issuance date, whichever is longer.

posted 12-08-2002 09:15 PM ET (US)            

On the positve side:
I see people blowing mad money on all kinds of custom and semi-custom boats, that aren't all that spectacular. As crazy as Whaler fans are, I think the demand is probably there to build them one at a time.

posted 12-09-2002 10:55 AM ET (US)         

Jimh, I agree it is somewhat mystifying as to why BW was having such difficult financial circumstances when so much was in their favor. In addition to the points you raised as to their advantages, you left out their biggest, Government contracts on the CPD side. And we know what the government was paying back in the days of $200 hammers and $700 toilets!!

posted 12-09-2002 01:37 PM ET (US)            

You are missing that many people have different tastes and priorities than you apparently have.

To me, at least, the "Classic" (1976 to about 1990) Montauk is lighter, faster, more stable, has more room per foot and is more elegant in it's teak trimmed finery than the plain, heavy, cheapened 170.

The 170 is a nice boat which may someday be called a Classic, and it offers nice features for people who want those features.

It is not a matter of superior or inferior. It is a matter of tastes and priorities.

posted 12-09-2002 02:33 PM ET (US)            

Further on the Toyota analogy:

That FJ60 is an absolutely beautiful, masterful and economic expression of functionality and utilitarianism. As such, it personified the requirements and perhaps even characteristics of its consumers.

The new Landcruisers is a bloated, over decorated and over appointed, bulbous lined and ill-proportioned expression of the current SUV craze. As such, im quite convinced it accurately represents, if not IT'S buyers, the American public in general.

posted 12-09-2002 06:29 PM ET (US)            

Jimm,
I have the FJ80 (very reliable) and love it but would enjoy the added HP from the FJZ80.

posted 12-09-2002 06:37 PM ET (US)         

I suggest you look at the Holby line of 19 footers. They are semi-custom SCRIMP technology hulls. Their classic lines are truly eye-catching, but their price tags are as well.

posted 12-09-2002 07:18 PM ET (US)         

My idea was a bit more simple. Buying bare Whaler hulls from CPD in quantity, and setting up a line to produce and add the Classic interiors no longer available from BW. This mahogany and teak woodwork is fairly simple, combined with readily available, but high priced, OEM suppliers still out there (such as the rails). But the end boats, almost exact copies of the originals, would be quite expensive, and most of the potential buyers (at least from this site) will opt for a good used fixer-upper Classic instead, or a new 130-170. I think these boats would sell and have appeal, but I don't think any money could be made at all. But I'd still like to try one as a project, and see if I lose my shirt. Recently saw a brand new bare hull 15' for sale at a dealer. One could build a perfect 15 Sport or Supersport out of this.

But there is another issue. Most of the Classic Whaler interiors for the 13-17' models (except the Montauk) are not great on creature comfort or function. The sit-down mahogany thwart seat desgins of these Classics are basically uncomfortable, and would make them harder to sell. It would seem new, more functional interiors, but with the same classic lines, would be necessary.
So some professional design work, based on new ergonomics, would be necessary.

Then there is a third issue. If the new venture effectively brought "new" yacht quality Whaler classics back into the market place, BW CPD could simply pull the plug on you by refusing to sell hulls, and then producing the Classics themselves. They are not going to let someone knock out the new 130-170's with their OWN competing classic hulls!

All of this could also apply to 18-25 Outrages, purchased as bare hull Guardians.
I think there could be more business opportunity here, as good classic Outrages are getting harder and harder to find used, in decent shape. Last week I happened to spot a brand new recreational 22 Outrage/Guardian offered by a Dealer, set up as dive boat, complete with removable side panel, tank racks, 30" transom and Mercury/Yamaha 225 4-stroke. The 30" engine, incidentally, looked absolutely HUGE on the 22, way out of proportion to the boat.

posted 12-09-2002 11:13 PM ET (US)            

As a matter of fact a Boston Whaler type design would, (to me) be considered timeless. A product of form following function, much like a Porsche. If you examine a new Porsche vrs an original one , you will notice a evolutionary process not a design change.

Going back to comparison to the old Toyota, I would compare that to a Jeep, which plenty of people still buy today. An SUV is more of a hybrid of a car/truck Which again totaly different market.

posted 12-10-2002 10:47 AM ET (US)         

Again, to borrow from jimh, the market for actually making the hull and accompanying outfitting would probably be in the 18-25ft. Outrage models from the 80's. There are far fewer used models in these categories than in the 17 and under class. And because of the popularity of Jim's site, fewer and fewer will change hands for cheap prices. The durability and quality of this class combined with the relatively small numbers available make these hard to part with by present owners.

posted 12-10-2002 02:30 PM ET (US)            

I agree on the landcruiser analogy. I had a 1983 CJ-7 and that was the funnest car I ever owned. I drove that thing everywhere...literally. Nothing could touch it offroad, nothing beat driving topless and NO doors, and chics loved it. It also got 20mpg with the 112hp 252CI 6cyl and 4 spd Tremec trans mated to Dana 44 axles with full posi in rear. But....it only did MAYBE 80mph and in a headwind maybe 60. It was slower than molasses and rode like crap. Seatbelts were a necessity to keep you from bouncing out of it. Now we have the new YJ Jeep with its 180hp 4.0 6cyl. A/C, Automatics, etc. Independent front Suspension(IFS), airbags and all the craeture comforts. Problem is it can't 4wheel for anything but with "tread lightly" as our offroad mascot, nobody really cares. Would be hard to market the old CJ's at this day and age, especially without airbags.

posted 12-10-2002 09:09 PM ET (US)            

What is a Whaler? I mean other than a boat made by Boston Whaler Inc. I see three distinct aspects of the Classic Whaler that make it unique:

1) Unique hull design.
2) High quality appointments, fittings, workmanship.
3) Unibond hull construction.

It is the sum of all three of these items that makes a true Classic Whaler. Being a Classic Whaler does not, however, guarantee that everybody is going to like it. Some prefer Post Classic Whalers and there is NOTHING WRONG with that. We all get to choose what we prefer.

Now if someone were to want to build a new, top-of-the-line Classic Whaler, they are going to have to incorporate all three of the above mentioned features.

If you splash a hull, that's fine. It's been done many times before. I have seen the 13', 15', 17' and 18' Whalers hulls reproduced here in the NW. None of them would fool you into thinking they were Whalers because they do not have Unibond hulls nor are they particularly well appointed.

Even if you could build a splashed hull and finish it to the nines, it still does not have a Unibond hull. It may be nice as a Hinckley (and as expensive) but that’s not really picking up where Whaler left off either.

Whaler has now spent over 40 years refining and perfecting the Unibond hull and the details of this process are tightly guarded. The general idea is well known but the particulars are not. Foam is not just foam, there are many different types. Whaler is now moving to a new type because of the gas emissions from the foam in use now. The delivery of the foam into the hull is not as simple as it sounds. Ever seen a Whaler mold set? They look expensive.

I am sure there are plenty of boat builders out there that would love to know exactly what Whaler uses and how they use it. No way a $50K investment is going to replicate even one Unibond Whaler hull.

The Unibond is Whaler’s and Whaler’s alone. Not even Bob Dougherty has been able to equal the Whaler hull with the Edgewater line of boats he started. By the way, I looked at several new Edgewaters at Stage Harbor Marine in Chatham, MA last summer. They looked very nice but were really not much in comparison to a Whaler.

Now it’s interesting to hear lhg talk about fitting out CGP hulls. That is exactly what I have been contemplating recently. Take a CGP hull and finish it to high standards thus replicating the best aspects of the Whalers from the 1980’s. But at what cost?

Note that this idea is very different than the one described by rsess1 in his post above. There, a dealer ordered multiple bare hulls from Whaler and finished them to lower standards in an effort to economize and earn more profit, I imagine. Note how rsess1 got rid of the one he had. To be successful one would have to make a new boat better than what was offered, not worse. Besides, cutting costs puts one more directly in competition with what Whaler itself does now.

The other limitation of building off of Whaler CGP hulls is that you would really be limited to creating Outrage models. The Revenge line would be far more involved, both from a molding standpoint and the amount of labor and expense in the fitting out of it. So we would probably be talking about the 13’, 15’, 17’, 18’, 22’ and 25’ hulls as being the best candidates. Does the 13’ mold still exist?

posted 12-11-2002 01:48 AM ET (US)            

I realize there are many new technologies today that we did not have 30 years ago but that does not necessarily mean you would employ them to build a recreational boat.

Don't get me wrong, I think your idea is wonderful. I want to offer my encouragement, not discouragement. I was just making some realistic observations. I would love to see your boat happen.

But as to the Unibond process being antiquated, I suggest you let the boys in Edgewater in on that. They are still forging ahead after more than 40 years.

Seriously though, I can think of no other manufacturer who builds a hull like Whaler. Yes, I know others are foam filled but I can think of none that are totally filled and unified with the skins.

The foam is not just for flotation, that is a secondary benefit. The foam is a structural part of the hull. It ties the skins together into a single unit that is both incredibly strong and light weight. It does this with regular polyester resins and glass fibers. If it were so easy don’t you think others would be doing it?

No, there is no black magic here, nor are we talking about building a rocket, but if you can build a Divinicel cored hull with both skins bonded to it and the rest of the boat fitted out with computer milled titanium hardware for $50,000 then not only do I want to buy stock in your company, I want to come work for you!

I would love to hear more about how one goes about vacuum bagging two skins around a milled foam core. Would the process be applicable to components of the boat like consoles and seating? How various could the shapes be? I mean, is it applicable to one-off production or are there molds involved that would necessitate mass production in order to justify the expense?

How about molding the "legs" for the Reversible Pilot Seat? (see my comments near the end of this thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000484.html )

Brian,

As to the retail price of today's Whalers, what else is new? I’ve heard that since I was a kid. Actually, I think the reverse is true. Whalers are coming down in terms of real dollars per pound of boat.

Look at the new MT 170. It is a huge hit because they hit the right price point. The MT 170 is so popular that Whaler has had to build a second mold set to keep up with demand. There's no way you can tell Whaler that the MT 170 was a poor business decision.

posted 12-11-2002 10:01 AM ET (US)            

The fifty thousand dollar figure was the tooling cost and fist one . Not the prototype , that would be my 16' which the labor number (Which is considerable) was not figured.

One other note, when I was describing the foam process, the contours of the inside of each hull would be digitized, then the divinicel cut to an exact fit. Where as when you bond the hulls together the two foam cores would sandwhich together. Thus having no voids between the two hulls and ending with one incredible strong structure. sounds complex, but once you have the CAD drawing of the foam core ,it's a matter of running the machine.

posted 12-11-2002 11:21 AM ET (US)         

Bertram, Blackfin, Chris Craft, Blackwatch, and Sea Craft all built high quality small boats and they all went out of business for one reason or another. I suspect the primary reason is that people are unwilling to pay the cost at which high quality comes. Posters here regularly complain about the price of new Whalers. I think the new Montauk 170 is VERY inexpensive for what one gets.

I submit that CPD Whalers are now cheaper than the comparable Classic Whalers were when they were available. I have a 1982 price guide and the bare Outrage 18 hull was in the $11,000-12,000 range. What would that be in today's dollars? Even if inflation is calculated at 3%, a $12,000 hull would come in at $21,675. At 4% inflation, it comes to $26,300.

How many of us would pay that for an 18' hull? Add in freight, motor, rigging and a trailer and probably get in the range of $35,000-$40,000. I think that a Holby Pilot 19, which tickets in this range, would be a better buy. Everyone who sees it loves the boat but thinks it's too expensive.

posted 12-11-2002 12:25 PM ET (US)            

An Outrage 18 listed for $10,980 in September of 1982, the 18 bare hull was $8,960. Adjusted for inflation those prices are $20,539 and $16,760 respectively.

And $25,000 in 1985 is $ 40,909 today (or at least last year).

posted 12-11-2002 04:14 PM ET (US)         

You're correct that $25k is $41k as of last year using CPI. However, I simply took it out to this year at a flat 4%. As far as pricing, I took the $22,000.00 for my boat directly from the 1985 Boston Whaler Factory Price guide. The $3,000.00 for taxes, trailer and accessories, I thought, was fair for 1985.