posted 12-17-2003 09:33 AM ET (US)            

I have had both, and used both offshore and in protected waters.

The classic Outrage 18 is a lot bigger boat (almost 2 feet longer). It is more comfortable in rough water. It also costs, handles, tows, launches, retrieves, drinks, maintains and stores like a much bigger boat.

For strictly big, rough water I prefer it. It is the best offshore small boat ever, in my (never humble) opinion.

The classic Montauk is a lot more versatile. For a mix of protected and rough water, small lakes, rivers, etc. I prefer it's more nimble handling as well as all of the other advantages of being a smaller, lighter boat.

It is the most versatile CC ever, again, in my opinion. It is also the one I kept.:))

posted 12-17-2003 12:04 PM ET (US)            

Yes, I misread your post and my comments are on the classic Montauk 17 (16'7").

Though I cannot comment on the 170 from experience I would expect it to be more comfortable than the classic Montauk, maybe even more comfortable than the classic Outrage 18.

On the other hand, I see unnecessary weight as an enemy of seaworthiness, performance and handling, not to mention buoyancy.

I think that people who value a soft ride above seaworthiness need to look at boats other than the classic, "Dougherty" and earlier Boston Whalers. The 170 (I can't call it a Montauk) would seem to be a good choice in that category.

posted 12-17-2003 04:07 PM ET (US)            

Balderdash! (from the newer, kinder, gentler Moe) :-) That's just the old, "they don't make 'em like they used to" myth.

I think the 170 Montauk is a good choice for those who want a more seaworthy boat than the classic 17, while at the same time getting a smoother, drier ride. IMHO, the larger boat with more weight and a better entry, both of which contribute to comfort, also benefits from their contributions to seaworthiness. If the opposite were true an aluminum john boat would be more seaworthy.

If you wanna talk about buoyancy, a 1400 lb boat with a 400 lb four-stroke that has a swamped capacity of 3400 lbs, has literally one ton more bouyancy than a 900 lb boat with a 300 hp two-stroke, that has a relatively meager 2000 lbs of swamped capacity. Even the 150 has 2900 lbs of swamped capacity vs the classic 17's 2000.

"Unnecessary weight" assumes the weight serves no purpose. That clearly isn't the case here. The 170 is a much larger, as well as heavier, boat than the classic 17. In fact, the new 150 is about as large overall, and as heavy, as the classic 17. Obviously from the previous paragraph, some of the additional weight must come from additional floatation, and not just size.

I'll bet if we measured freeboard, especially at the transom cut-out, the 170 would do just as well, or better, with the four-stroke, as the classic 17 does with a 2-stroke.

posted 12-17-2003 05:41 PM ET (US)            

I said what I think and you said what you think. We may not agree on what constitutes seaworthiness. I obviously didn't change your opinion and you haven't changed mine.

Nor have I called your comments balderdash. However, I don't find you manners appealing.

posted 12-17-2003 06:37 PM ET (US)            

I take that to mean a vessel that is most well prepared for conditions one might typically expect during a trip to the ocean (preferably a round trip).

You can decide for yourself which vessel (18 foot classic Outrage or the new 170 Montauk) is more seaworthy - but first consider the conditions you are likely to encounter in your intended use of the vessel..then throw in a couple degrees of "worsening conditions" for added safety.

I do not have any experience on the new 170 Montauk, however I do have experience being in a boat that was not fit for conditions as they developed, and I can tell you that this is a very scary experience that I do not want to repeat. The good news is that neither hull will sink and leave you swimming home.

While we're really comparing apples to oranges here I'll voice my own two cents.

Opinions abound but I think most would agree that the bottom line really comes once you've analyzed your needs from a realistic perspective on what you can afford to buy, are equipped to accomodate (storage and towing), and prepared to spend.

The different hulls were designed completely differently (aside from construction method) and handle very differently in differing sea conditions. The most often touted advantage to the "rougher riding" Outrage hull design is superior tracking in a following sea - which is especially important when returning to port during an ebbing tide (or at the mouth of a river) with the whole of the ocean stacking up behind you.

The marketing folks at Brunswick and Whaler have tried to capitalize on the reputation of the classic Boston Whaler hullform by naming the new hull "Accutrack." While I do not know for sure, I suspect that the newer hull on the 170 does track well in a following sea, but I have not heard any anecdotal or confirmed evidence that shows it is any better than the classic design - but I believe it is better than other currently available 17' center console fishing boats.

Does this ability to track in a following sea make a boat more seaworthy? Again - it is up to you.

The 170 has a smoother ride through chop - again, a benefit (?) of the new hullform and heavier hull weight...does smooth ride in a chop equate with seaworthiness? It certainly contributes to better control by the operator, but the bottom line is that it is up to you and your needs.

posted 12-17-2003 06:57 PM ET (US)            

I have owned a 1978 Classic Montauk, a 1997 Outrage 17, and still own a 1985 Classic Outrage 18..

From your statement above, I don't think you can compare an MT 170 to any of the Classics... Different Hulls, different boats.. If you do try to compare apples to oranges, I would say that the newer style Outrage 17 hull would be closer to the Classic Outrage 18 then the MT 170 would be by far.
The Outrage 17 has the built in fuel tank as does the Outrage 18. The Outrage 18 is 18'6" and has a 7'2" beam and a 10" draft, the Outrage 17 is 17' 6" and has a 7' beam and a 12" draft..
On the other hand, the MT 170 is 17' 3" and has a 6'10" beam and a 9" draft.. The MT 170 is clearly smaller then both of the above two boats and thus my decision on which boat would be a closer match.. Of course there are other models as well that might be more of a match..

One of the reasons I sold the Outrage 17 is that I found I prefered the Classics better for my type of boating and enjoyment. I did feel that the Outrage 17 cut through rougher water a little better then the Classic Outrage 18 but the Outrage 18 has many more featuers that I like in a boat it was an easy decision.

Hey, that's why there are so many different models of automobiles too. We all like different things and use them for different purposes...

You have a nice MT 170 there. If you took Knot at Work's statement to heart about "Keep your sweet looking little Montauk", some people might be offended by it being called 'Little".. If you have a 25' boat you might call it little.. If you are moving up from a 13' boat, you would call it big, or bigger anyway...

It sounds like you have 2 foot itis??? Or is there something you don't like about the MT 170???

posted 12-18-2003 04:24 AM ET (US)            

Thank you all for you replies and respected opinions.!

Whalerman, I love almost everything about my MT 170. At this moment I don't think I have 2-foot itis. :)

I could never be offended by Knot's statement because he has the same sweet looking little Montauk that I do. :)

I have 2 friends, both with Classic 18 foot Outrages. (Well one is called a 19-foot Outrage but is exactly the same as the 18 footer but without all the nice wood on her). It's these guys that turned me into a Boston Whaler lover. I have been out on some pretty rough waters with these guys and up till now their boats handled everything really well. As Buckda mentioned, the Outrages handled well in the following seas (although at times I thought we would get swamped because of the low transom). I loved their boats and especially the desert tan 1987 18-foot Classic with all the lovely wood. In fact when I went to buy my boat I was actually planning on buying a second hand 18 foot classic that the dealer had. But all together the Brand new MT 170 was less expensive than the 14-year old Outrage with a 3- year old motor on her. I went for the new boat and surely don't regret it.
I haven't yet been out in such rough conditions with my MT 170 as I have been in with my friend's 18 Outrages. These guys have often been out with me in my boat and agree that the boat has a softer ride. They also agree that you will get wetter in the MT 170 than in the outrage.(in choppy water with the wind coming from the side). Although the Outrage is a bigger boat (1'3" longer and 4" wider) it doesn't look bigger. We have had all 3 boats beside each other in the harbor and they all look the same size (17 foot MT 170, 18-foot Classic Outrage and 19-foot Classic Outrage)
I agree with Buckda and that being in a boat that is not fit
for developing conditions at sea can be a scary experience. I have a feel for what the Outrage can handle, I guess I don't have the feel for what the MT 170 can handle just yet.
Thanks again for all you opinions guys. Love this forum !
Erik

posted 12-18-2003 08:32 AM ET (US)            

I fish 25 to 30 miles offshore with my 83'18 outrage.

All you have to do is ask yourself if the 170 could
go there and you have your answer . I would never had taken
my montauk classic out there thats why I bought the 18'
for the ocean and my 13 gls for the bay

posted 12-18-2003 09:22 AM ET (US)            

Well said Erik. Of course no offense meant as I love my sweet little Montauk!

Plenty big for me to take the family out in the bay, plenty big to fish as I want to. Plenty small to clean up and tow.

My opinion after much homework of the 23-16 foot range, this is the best bang for the dollar and has the potential to get better with age. Best size , weight and towing ratio in my opinion also. IF they were still producing the 17 Montauk pre 2003, I would of course purchased that over any other boat on market, yet the wider, bigger 170 MT had all I was looking for and I was prepared to compromise some comforts and conveniance for the reputation and strength of Whaler.

Lastly I have been to see on a 96,000 ton 1100 foot long Aircraft carrier and have felt SMALL so it is all relative...

posted 12-18-2003 07:14 PM ET (US)            

This is the first time I have seen a marine argument - not a financial (size & weight = smaller motors & costs) or aesthetic one - for Dougherty Whalers.

I'd be interested in any further hashing-out of that particular point that anyone would be willing to provide either publicly in this thread or privately (via email).

That is, what is seaworthiness, how is it affected by length, beam, draft, weight, etc., and what are the pros & cons of the classic Whaler vs the contemporary designs?

thanks for the discussion so far,

Brandt

posted 12-18-2003 10:24 PM ET (US)            

My brother-in-law and I were fishing for Reds near the mouth of the inlet near Little River, SC when we took a couple of waves off the stern that partially swamped the boat. When the tide changes there are often, easily six foot or more swells that roll the boat. They are usually pretty far apart and do not break. The first wave only cleared the transom by a foot or so putting 6" of water on the deck. The next wave hit us so hard that it knocked both of us to the deck, mid-chest in water. Probably only the back 1/3rd of the boat was swamped. I turned the boat into the waves and it took forever to clear the water. I kept getting further out and my Rule 500gph was a joke w/ that much water. I eventually turned her around and headed into the inlet w/ the boat partially swamped. Fortunatly we did not take any other waves of similar size. My crazy brother-in-law actually landed a fish as he was pulling in the lines. We were really never in trouble - I was just dissapointed in how long it took us to clear the water.

posted 12-18-2003 11:41 PM ET (US)            

The more traditional "V-hulls" have a smoother entry in rough water, but they're also more prone to slip as the turn tightens and the "lean angle" brings the "V" up towards the surface. They're also much more prone to bow-steer in a following sea.

All things being equal, a steeper deadrise makes for a smoother entry. It also requires more power to plane, and provides less lateral stability and practical weight carrying ability. The classic Dougherty hulls are an extraordinary combination of the best of several worlds. They have a "V" to soften the entry much more than a traditional cathedral hull, but they also have enough "flatness" to carry weight well, and the tri-hull-like lines provide exceptional tracking in turns and in a following sea. I can't imagine a better balance for small off-shore boats.

I have a 1989 22' Outrage with twins. I've made several long trips home diagonally across following seas. Her inherent stability allowed me to pick routes that other much boats would not tolerate (because they're prone to bow-steer me off of the wave faces and roll and plow into the next.) I just zip along, rocking gently side-to side with the occasional bang. :-)

Heavy and smooth does not equate with seaworthiness. The weight and a simple V can be fine - maybe even nice - if you're just plowing straight into the chop at a 90 degree angle, but light and good tracking are MUCH more important on any other course.

As others have pointed out, the older whalers also shed water as fast as it can be shipped - and that's another powerful advantage that contributes to their seaworthiness. We all get surprised by the sea now and again. The traditional open transom of the 18' Outrage is a nice insurance policy - the boat simply wont HOLD enough water to keep her down. That isn't true of the new euro-transom comfort cruisers.

In my opinion the only disadvantage of the classic hulls is that they cost more to build. (The last of the classic Montauks were significantly more expensive than the 170s sitting next to them on the showroom floor).

posted 12-19-2003 04:09 AM ET (US)            

Once, while trying to pass a large tugboat with my friend's 18-foot Outrage, we miscalculated (underestimated) the wave height and frequency of the wake. At a certain point we literally cut right through a wave with lots of water going over the bow. We were totally soaked. The boat was filled with water about half way. It took like 2 seconds of accelerating to get rid of most of the water. We didn't even need the bilge pump.

Under the same circumstances I think my MT 170 would also have taken water over the bow. I wonder how long it would have taken to get ride of the same volume of water? This can easily be calculated of course.

What if the bilge pump fails, just when you need it? I know the boat won't sink but getting rid of the water fast would be a nice thing.:)

Really, what would be the best thing to do if the bilge pump failed and the boat (MT 170) was generously filled with water?

posted 12-19-2003 08:58 AM ET (US)            

For example, an Outrage can stuff the bow into the back of a steep wave in a following sea and throw the passengers overboard (possibly unconscious if they strike an object on the way overboard). Likewise, taking a wave over the stern in a 170 Montauk is asking for trouble (use a sea anchor or trail a bucket to hold your bow into the waves). There was also a post a while back by a "captain" standing in his 13' Classic and steering by leaning his body from side to side on his way to Catalina Island off California. I told him his boat would make it to Catalina Island but the likelihood of him being on board was low.

We discussed in earlier posts the fact that a 10 or 12-foot long sailboat (whatever the record is) can traverse the Atlantic. This is accomplished through proper planning by the captain. I doubt whether he would plan the voyage in such a small craft during hurricane season.

The bottom line is that all Boston Whalers are designed with an inherent design towards survival through unsinkability. The captain needs to ensure that he does not need to rely upon this feature by whatever means necessary.

(Stepping off the soapbox)

posted 12-19-2003 09:49 AM ET (US)            

Hooter, I agree with you regarding those making comparisons with out qualification. I have not sold my WHALER 170 to buy any other boat... and I certainly won't sell it to buy an older boat Brunswick, Genstar, Luhr or otherwise.

To the rest, comparisons about the 170 when you have admittedly no idea what the ride characteristics are, is to render your opinion of the 170 invalid. ( as my opinion is meaningless with the 18 foot... )

I do not pretend to discuss the ride of the older Whalers, so I can offer no comparison. If you want to ask me a question about my sweet looking little Montauk fire away.

Hooter... Come on my man IT IS A WHALER even if it is a new one.... When I am older and grayer and much more water passes under my Whalers drain plugs and through the bildge.... I will accept NEWER Whalers as they are and still maintain and affinity for my Sweet little Montauk.

posted 12-19-2003 02:12 PM ET (US)            

Both Dave (Buckda) and DaveH hit upon some key points. Seaworthiness is many things to many people, and as often as not, is determined by boards of investigation and courts after an accident. Ocean going yachts, both power and sail, are measured by many standards, including how far they may roll from vertical (well past 90 degrees) and still right themselves. Things like hull and deck design, ballast, watertight compartments are among the factors that influence this.

I might expand Dave(Buckda)'s definition by saying that a vessel is seaworthy if it is fit to transport its crew and cargo, without harm or loss, on the voyage at hand. No one in the industry will dispute DaveH's assertion that the crew is a significant part of the vessel, and hence a major factor in the vessel's seaworthiness. A vessel may be seaworthy with one cargo, but not another. It serves no purpose to deliver damaged or waterlogged cargo, or to lose it along the way. It may also be seaworthy for one voyage and not another. Saying the latter in simplier terms, a vessel may be seaworthy on a calmer day, but not in weather, even in the same water, including off-shore.

Keep in mind we're nitpicking at the differences between a 17 and 18 foot boat offshore. I'm not trying to pick on alkar, but I would maintain that not even his 22 Outrage was seaworthy offshore the day it delivered part of its crew/passenger cargo home with a near-fatal broken back. An investigation would ask many questions, such as was the high weight of the twin Hondas a cause or contributing factor, detracting from the seaworthiness... did the skipper exercise poor judgement even being in that situation, or did he mishandle the boat due to excessive speed or improper approach to the seas, detracting from the seaworthiness?

What I often see here is some classic owners' predisposition to sensationalize the capabilities of classic Whalers, sometimes to mythical proportions, and not only disregard, but disparage, those of modern Whalers. What I found to be balderdash was not JB's opinion, but his condescending insinuation that 170s are for those who don't sufficiently value seaworthiness. Alkar's similar treatment of the 170, but particularly the 190, is absurd. The 170 is the 17 Montauk taken to the next level. Is it at the same level as the larger classic 18 Outrage? Perhaps not, but as erik is discovering for himself, it's pretty close... and obviously, hooter, no 18 Outrage owner would have call to trade for a 170. While the 190 may not be at the level of larger Outrages, I would assert that it's the 18' classic Outrage taken to the next level, and not make the generalization that alkar did that all Outrages are superior offshore.

I'm sure that in 1976, there were a number of faithful who evangelized that the new smirk models weren't as seaworthy as the original boats. Read Jim Hebert's excellently written article on the classic 18 Outrage in the Reference section. In fact, I have to quote from it here:

The hull of the 18-Outrage is a modified vee-hull shape that evolved from the original twin sponson designs of the earlier hulls. This vee-hull form evolved over the years, benefiting from several earlier iterations whose seakeeping was not as successful. The evolution proceeded along these lines: As the length and beam of the hull increased, the enormous lateral stability of the twin sponson design of the 13-foot hull was no longer a necessity; thus the central hull grew into a moderate vee-hull design, while the twin sponsons shrunk, becoming only vestigial runners...

This design path taken by Dougherty almost exactly describes the evolution of the 15 and 17 classics to the 150 and 170 models. Perhaps the designers of the 150 and 170 looked at the 18 (or maybe even Edgewater) after asking themselves, "what would Doughterty do" to take the 15 and 17 boats to the next level? The path from the 18 Outrage to the next level of the 190 Nantucket is not so different either. More beam, less sponson, to achieve the legendary stability with a drier, softer ride.

My question is "what would Dougherty have done without the iron fist of Dick Fisher over him?" It's clear Bob's designs evolved away from Dick's original cathedral hull, which provided exceptional and legendary lateral stability for small skiffs, at the cost of legendary rough and wet ride in heavier seas. I suspect the classic 15 and 17 would've been much different without Fisher's influence on his designs. What Bob Dougherty HAS done is visible on the Edgewater website. Take a look at his 145, 155, and 175 hulls compared to the 150, 170 and 190 Whalers. Especially this view: http://www.ewboats.com/!galleries/140cc_gallery/images/140_streaking-w-puppy.jpg . Shockingly similar, I think!

These are my thoughts on the issues. I doubt they will change the attitudes of the "they don't make 'em like they used to" crowd. These attitudes, and their failures to recognize modern Whalers as evolutions of the originals (much less Whalers, or Montauks at all), serve only to divide the community of owners. And I'll say it one more time... that includes the attempt to segregate those owners into one "post-classics" forum.

posted 12-19-2003 03:04 PM ET (US)            

I really want to thank you all for your comments and opinions.

Moe I am very impressed by your thoughts on this issue and must honestly say that I agree with you. I also think the part where you talk about going to a higher level is exactly correct.

Knot, thanks for your answer as well. I have some questions for you but will place them on the "post-classics" forum.

Hooter, alot of respect here for you man but ah...I think Knot is right...btw, I even put the deckhand back in my photo album for you...*wink*...thought you would have liked that :)

Erik

posted 12-19-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)            

If you showed me, all unsuspecting and ignorant, pictures of decal-less current model Whalers and Edgewaters, I would no doubt guess that the Edgewaters were Whalers and vice versa.

So the designers at Whaler are clearly not asking themselves 'what would Dougherty do' as much as they might! :)

Meanwhile...I'm still finding this argument quite interesting and I hope no one is getting upset.

I suppose I am still interested in knowing what the (non-obvious) advantages of a low-weight hull are compared to a high-weight hull. A heavier hull will ride differently compared to a lighter one, all else being equal, and I can imagine that heavier might not always be better. Anyone want to elaborate on this particular point?

cheers,

Brandt

posted 12-20-2003 01:32 PM ET (US)            

I do not purport to be the wisest or most experienced skipper here. I don't purport to be an expert on hull design either, but I have been running boats and working on and near the ocean for more than 30 years, so I am comfortable making a number of generalizations based on my experience and observations:

1) THOROUGH PLANNING IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. Unfortunately, the world does periodically introduce an unforeseeable variable. For example, I would never presume to blame the space shuttle's engineering support team with "failure to adequately plan" because a critical tile was lost during lift-off. Equipment does occasionally fail. The crew of that ill-fated vessel subsequently made the best choices they could make given the information they had. It didn't matter.

We're all subject to the same influences of human fallibility as they relate to the reliability of our electronics, our engines, the quality of the information we're given during our trip planning process and, of course, our judgment.

Last summer, on the day of my near-fatal incident, I relied on a Coast Guard bar report promising "rolling swells" in the 4 foot range. It was a 05:30 report. We left port at about 06:30. The wave that greeted my vessel was variously estimated at 15-20 feet and breaking. A more experienced skipper might well have handled that circumstance better, but I did my best given my experience and ability. I was glad that I had a vessel that was able to bridge the difference between my planning & ability and the situation we actually faced.

2) PEOPLE DO NOT ALWAYS DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO: I have been diving for almost 29 years. During ten of those years I taught others to dive and did some commercial diving work too (vessel salvage and dam work). I also trained and worked as a Dive Rescue Specialist on a fast response team. During the course of that work I saw many dozens of dangerous incidents created by people who failed to follow THEIR plans - and that created dangerous situations for others. For example, on one day I had a dive team that was supposed to be on the surface at a designated time. That was the PLAN, but they decided to stay down another 35 minutes screwing around in very shallow water. I knew they were okay, because I was watching their easy-breathing bubble stacks, but their delay deprived us of 35 minutes of margin on our return travel time. I kept thinking they were about to surface, so I didn't send a Divemaster down to get them. Unfortunately, although it was sunny and clear when the divers went in, the fog rolled in about the time they surfaced. By the time they were out of the water the swell was up and our visibility had been reduced from miles to about 75 yards. That meant that we'd have a very slow trip home to port. With the additional time lost to our inconsiderate dive team, that meant staying outside the bar during worsening seas, or crossing a rough bar during a bad tide. In either case, we would be faced with circumstances that were much worse than anticipated. In forty years on the ocean I have seen hundreds of situations like this. It's that sort of variability that makes it nice to have a boat that provides a little extra "margin".

3) EVEN THE BEST SKIPPERS GET SURPRISED BY THE SEA: That's my story and I'm sticking to it. You more savvy skippers can choose to disagree, but you'll never persuade me otherwise. Sometimes a "rogue wave" will appear. How do you experienced guys plan for that? The invisible log will take occasionally out a prop. What appears to be a piece of kelp will occasionally turn out to be an algae-covered crab line that will foul both props. The newly serviced motor will occasionally quit because of a mechanic error, leaving you limping home with half-power in rougher-than-predicted seas. Murphy's law is alive and well at sea.

4) EVEN THE BEST SKIPPERS MAKE MISTAKES: Good skippers don't become "bad skippers" because they make an error in judgment. They just confirm their humanity. I recognize my fallibility. I've made lots of errors in judgment. I hope I'm making fewer as I age, but I expect to continue to be imperfect. I have buried my bow (once) when I was sure she was going to come up. That was almost 20 years ago. I hope I learned from that. But if I Screw up again, it would be a blessing to have a boat that shed the water immediately. Moe, sorry, but there's a difference between a vessel that spontaneously sheds ALL the water over 3" deep, and one that has to empty 2000 pounds of water from the cockpit through a hose the diameter of a garden hose. That's a long wait when you're trying to maintain steerage and keep the bow from taking another bite of the next wave. Less experienced skippers like myself find it very difficult to maintain control and keep the bow up when a little vessel has suddenly taken on an extra 2000 pounds; we'd rather not have to wait twenty minutes to lose the extra weight. (This issue almost kept me from selecting the whaler-drive optioned Outrage. The Whaler-drive compensates, only a little, by providing additional buoyancy equivalent to an 11' tender.)

5) SOME GENERALIZATIONS CAN BE MADE ABOUT HULL DESIGNS: We used to use a flat-bottom skiff to ferry huge amounts of gear up river. The flat bottom required very little power to plane - even when overloaded - because it's hull was the ideal planing surface and the weight was distributed over the entire hull. It took a lot of weight to reduce the freeboard even a little - because so much more water had to be displaced as each inch of hull was pushed into the water. (Remember Archimedes Principle from Physics?) Of course, the flat-bottom didn't want to turn well, and it was a very rough ride through chop. The opposite is true of true V-hulls; freeboard and planing response are lost quickly to additional weight, etc. Boston Whalers are not magically exempt from these general principles. Over the last thirty years I've owned and ridden in many, many of them, including newer boats, and I've yet to find an exception to the rule. (I have not ridden in a new Nantucket)

A heavier hull with a deeper V will require more power to plane.

I do not have a "they don't make'em like they used to" attitude. The new 22' Guardians from the Commercial Products division are better than my old 1989 22' Outrage - clearly. In retrospect, given what I've spent on my boat, I wish I had bought a Guardian. :-)

I do not think ill of the new Montauk or Nantucket. As I said, if my kids were younger and I were buying an all-purpose family boat, I'd buy one of them. I understand the boats are well-built, they're equipped with lots of creature comforts, and I'm told that the euro-transom is better for climbing in and out of the boat.

Not all boat hulls - not even Whaler hulls - are created equally. And seaworthiness is not just a function of opinion. This is a situation where we can't all be right. I think I'm right...but I KNOW we can't both be right.

I don't have any illusions about my boat being some magical thing that will get me through anything the ocean throws at me. I've just been impressed with how forgiving it really is. It does more, more easily, than I ever imagined. It really does track better in a following sea. I really can pick a line through the waves that my last V-hull would not tolerate. That's neat. That's all.

You know, for you more perfect skippers, there's really no need for extra batteries. After all, if you map your power consumption, plan your power usage correctly, and maintain your battery and other equipment properly, you wont need that extra battery. Make sense? Not to me. I select my boats using the same principles I use to equip them. I try to take reasonable steps to maximize my safety margin.

As wonderful as the new Montauks and Nantuckets are, I don't expect to see them gobbled up by the Coast Guard, Marine Corps and law enforcement agencies the way the Outrages/Guardians have been (and continue to be).

I think it's okay to recognize that hull designs are a trade-off. It seems irrational and silly to force the politically correct "everybody is equally good at everything" overlay onto the discussion of boat hulls. The new Nantucket/Montauk are not supposed to be the same as "classic" boats. The new boats are supposed to emphasize appearance and creature comforts, and ride quality in light chop, etc. The Outrages are different = not equivalent = better at some things, worse at others.

posted 12-20-2003 07:18 PM ET (US)            

I don't expect Dougherty to take my call any more than I expect him to take yours. Nor do I expect to need to call him when I'm merely asking a conceptually simple question about weight in boats.

Boats are engineered objects. There is no such thing as a perfect boat. As someone who has never himself owned a boat, and who is seeking to buy a Whaler, I am curious to know what some of the engineering tradeoffs are between a lighter and a heavier hull.

A deeper V with a heavier hull will obviously provide a smoother ride under certain circumstances. Many boat buyers presumably want and will pay for that softer ride. Marketing reasons alone *could* be the reason for Dougherty to have designed the hulls heavier.

But I *don't* know if that's true, and that's why I'm asking what other aspects of performance (other than trailerability and fuel economy) are meaningfully affected by weight, either positively or negatively.

This is an engineering question, first and last. I don't think the desire to know more about this is offensive or inappropriate and I'd prefer that you address it directly if you have something to add. Though if you'd like to set up a conference call with Bob, I'll be happy to join it.

all best,

Brandt

posted 12-20-2003 07:26 PM ET (US)            

B

posted 12-21-2003 05:27 AM ET (US)            

MT 170 is much more difficult to manouver at slow speeds with winds from either side. Putting your boat between 2 other boats in a harbor needs alot of practice with the MT 170.

The MT 170's steering feels more reliable than the Outrage 18. Letting go of your steering wheel in the Ourage could mean big trouble. (in any boat of course but there is a big difference between the 2)

I tried seating 2 adults on the so called "steps" at the back (MT 170)....felt like the boat was heading for the moon. Couldn't get her to plane easily and asked the passengers to get back on the front cooler. Now I have the lighter and faster 90 2-stroke and do not yet have a Pate tank. I wonder what it would be like with the heavier 90 4-stroke and a full 27 gal Pate tank??? We have done the some in the Outrage (sitting on the back inside rim) and never experienced the same skyrocket feeling.

The MT 170 is up on plane much faster than the Outrages I've been on. As a reference : MT 170 with 90 2-stroke Merc, Outrage 18 with 115 2-stroke tall 6 cil, Outrage 19 with 140 2-stroke Suzuki. Top speeds of all 3 are about the same at WOT (61km/h-39mph)

Riding in the front of the boat is much more comfortable in the MT 170 than the Outrage. Big difference.

The height of the console in the MT 170 takes some getting used to. It's great when seated but when standing up feels a bit low. On the other hand I have almost broken my knee-cap twice on the handle-bar around the console on the 19 Outrage.

When the chop gets big and the wind's coming from the side, the Outrage is a drier boat.

I will probably think of more things after I have submitted this reply.

For me, the one big advantage of the Outrage 18 is the self-bailing ability making it (maybe) better suited for off-shore fishing in case the going gets a bit too rough.

One more thing: When I go to a boat show of any kind, I have the habbit of knocking on every hull of every boat I am interested in. This is a typical Boston Whaler-lover habbit I suspect. Last year at one of the shows I saw a few New Edgewater's. Man this was a disappointment. It sounded like the other cheap hollow boxes...but at the price of a Boston Whaler. They may look simular...but they're not.

Happy holidays to All !! and thanks again.

posted 12-21-2003 08:14 AM ET (US)            

I agree in entirety with your handling Characteristics of the 170!

Hit it all on the head.

A few positives I do want to point out. Draft is shallow.

Small size lends to easy post fishing cleaning, and storage. It trailers well. Chicks dig it.

Erik you hit the main issues with the 170 on handling. Those are the only issues I have also observed. I would not trade my sweet little Montauk for anything.

posted 12-21-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)            

Your post:
"That is, what is seaworthiness, how is it affected by length, beam, draft, weight, etc., and what are the pros & cons of the classic Whaler vs the contemporary designs?....."I *am* interested in a VERY DRY, excuse the expression, discussion of the engineering TRADEOFFS involved in making boats lighter or heavier. Looks like I should go find a textbook on hull design. But I wish I could simply ask here. Ah well."

posted 12-21-2003 01:05 PM ET (US)            

Jeff, i wouldn't trade my sweet little one either.

Hooter, the 170 Montauk is not rated for more than 90 hp. I think everyone on this site agrees that it should be higher.
Some have put on larger-than-rated engines at their own risk.(insurance and waranty issues)I will stick with my engine for the time being. It is fast enough for me and in normal conditions the boat just jumps out of the water on to plane. Really amazing.

As soon as the weather conditions get a bit better over here I will certainly be doing some more comparing and testing between all three boats. If anyone has any suggestions what they find would be interesting to be compared...just let me know.

Thanks all,

Erik

posted 12-21-2003 01:08 PM ET (US)            

The newer boats come installed with Teleflex No-Feedback system meaning you can let go of the wheel and the wheel will not move by itself.

On the other hand, the older Outrages (and other models) came with the Teleflex Safe-T system. If you let go of the wheel, the wheel would turn by itself and eventually the boat would go in a circle. Many people have changed the Safe-T system over to either the No-Feeback system or even better, the Hydraulic system. With either of these systems, you can let go of the wheel and the wheel will not turn by itself, only the wind or current will change the direction of the boat.

The Sea Star Hydraulic system is preferred for larger HP motors, 150 hp and up and many people prefer the Bay Star hydraulic system on smaller motors.

Joe

posted 12-21-2003 02:19 PM ET (US)            

I think what Hooter is saying, unless you own one, or spent some time in a certain model, that you cannot know how the boat will handle or perform thereby not being able to give first hand knowledge or experience.

You mention Moe as being qualified because he has a 150 model. I also had the Outrage 17 with the same Accu-Track hull as the rest of the newer models yet I cannot compare it to the MT 170 as it is not identical to the MT170, just as the 150 is not... 2 different boats. I think every model has different characteristics and unless you have spent some time in a particular model, you (or anyone) does not have first hand knowledge or experience with that model. We would only be guessing.

I'm even sure there are different handling characteristics between 2 different MT170 models. Different motors, different options, some with larger fuel tanks, etc.... All effect handling, speed, and performance.

posted 12-21-2003 04:20 PM ET (US)            

But if you're gonna pick nits and say that the handling of a 170 with two 6 gallon tanks is different from one with a 24 gallon Tempo tank, or that of a 4 stroke 90 is different than that of a 2 stroke 90, then I guess you could make the case that the 150 is different from the 170.

The 170 and 150 hulls are virtually identical, except the 170 is 10% longer, 5% wider, with 2" more depth. Modern whaler owners who've looked at them closely can see that.

Hull designs ARE identical, just different sizes:
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/150vs170/170and150HullDesigns.jpg

Transoms are identical, except 150 closes off the sponsons in the last few inches, and the 2" higher gunnel 170 sits 2" lower in the water with 2" more draft, so it needs the splash well with 2" lip, given the same 20" motor transom height.
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/150vs170/Sterns/150vs170Stern.jpg

In fact, if you consider the deck space lost to the splash well, the deck floor length is the same:
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/150vs170/overhead/SizeComparison.jpg

The difference to me would be that the 150 is only comfortable in Lake Erie 2-4' chop, where the 170 would be more tolerable in 3-5' chop, even not considering its superiority of standing vs sitting.