Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  18 Outrage vs 190 Nantucktet

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

Author Topic:   18 Outrage vs 190 Nantucktet
kamie posted 01-02-2004 02:03 PM ET (US)   Profile for kamie   Send Email to kamie  
I was scanning ebay this morning and someone was selling a 18' Ourage 1982. In looking at the numbers it seems to compare nicely to the new 190 nantucket.
Outrage is slightly shorter, lighter and seems to have less comfort things like seats. Nantucket is larger, heaver with nice seating. Both hulls rated to max at 150 HP. Other than the Outrage is a 22 year old boat and the Nantucket is new, what other differences am I missing that aren't in the specs?

Link to ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2450546374

hooter posted 01-02-2004 04:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Think of the comparison betwixt a 1982 Corvette and a late-model Cadillac Fleetwood, and assume for a moment that you could get both with the exact same power plant.

Some will consider one more comfortable than the other, due to the wider wheel-base, heavier, smoother ride and the "nice seating".

Some will consider one to be more nimble, more responsive and more fuel efficient at any given speed, due to the lighter weight.

Some will like all the seat cushions, bells and whistles in the newer rig, while others will appreciate the functionality and efficient layout of the older craft.

Due to the difference in weight, at equivalent power and conditions, the lighter craft will be always quicker at any given engine rpm.

Tthe owner of the new rig will part with substantially more dough for his land yacht than will the owner of a fully restored and repowered Corvette.

Ok with the comparison so far? Well, the owner of the older craft will likely benefit from having some experience and skill as a general mechanic. He will need to enjoy, or at least not mind, working on older mechanical, electrical and structural components to keep his rig in tip top working order. The owner of the newer craft can be as unlearned and innocent as a new babe about such things, at least for a while of up to sev'ral months followin' his purchase.

With all that said, neither boat will ever sink out from under you, will retain more of its value relative to what you pay than any other boat you can buy, will command a healthy dose of respect from law enforcement and wildlife enforcement officers (as well as from chicks). And both will give the owner a valid excuse to waste time readin' and participating at this website. Both boats are, in this writer's opinion, very pretty things to behold, but he's partial to Corvettes. Good luck with your decision.

Check out this cool 'Vette of a Whaler-!

kamie posted 01-02-2004 11:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks Hooter,

Given the chick allowing me to buy the boat in the first place is more the luxury car type than the sports car type I'm know it will be the Nantucket in the end. I was really just wondering if there was someplace the Outrage could go that the Nantucket could not? Other than having more fun flying down the backroads in the sports car (Sorry prefer 1963 MGB) I can still take my luxury car everywhere I can take the sports car. Now if we are going to talk 4WD vs luxury car that may be a different thing. Although there are a lot of places i took a '78 Honda Civic wagon and returned to tell that I shouldn't have..

Perry posted 01-03-2004 12:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Good analogy Hooter, well said!
jimh posted 01-03-2004 09:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Continuing the car/boat analogy:

Being a guy who was born in Detroit, raised in Detroit, and spent the 1960's as a little kid hiding in the back seat of a 1960 Chevrolet Impala red convertible with a 348-cubic-inch V-8 and Hurst 4-speed transmission while my older brother (who was supposed to be baby-sitting me) went cruising on Woodward Avenue with his buddy, I am quite familiar with the mystique of an older classic car that has been restored and maintained in good condition.

Currently I live about a mile from Woodward Avenue in what is the epicenter of the cruising neighborhood, and on many summer nights we take the dog for a walk over to the local Dairy Freeze on Woodward, hang out, and watch the cars cruise by.

There is a whole genre of what I call "Dairy Queen Cars", that is, cars that are not of much practical value but their owners generally take them out for a drive on a summer evening to get an ice cream cone. Sitting at the DQ on Woodward is a great way to get a parade of these cars going by.

From this point of view I can tell you that if you pull into the DQ with a beautiful 1957 Chevrolet you will get more attention than if you pull in there with a 2004 Lexus. In fact, 2004 Lexus cars and others like them are lost in the backdrop.

In the case of the cars, you might find that if you wanted to take a 2,500 mile trip it might be more comfortable in the long run to go in the Lexus rather than the 1957 Chevy. However, in the case of the boats, I am not so sure you can say this same thing about a 1988 OUTRAGE 18 versus a 2004 190 NANTUCKET.

With an older boat you can add most all of the same bells and whistles like modern electronics, modern propulsion, and modern convenience devices to the 1988 boat as well as you can to a 2004 boat.

Your engine can be just as modern on both boats.

If you want more cushioned upholstery on the 1988 boat you can just add it. If you want more storage space, just throw in a dry cooler and use it for storage.

Ultimately the difference between the two boats will be limited to the hull shape, and in this regard the boats are quite similar. I do not think that you will find the sea keeping ability of these two boats to be drastically different, such that you could ride on one with much less motion or discomfort than on the other. These are, after all, basically small boats, and when you get in rough seas there is no small boat that will ride like a 2005 Lexus on a stretch of new highway.

If you want your wife to go boating with you, you will have to be blessed with a woman who can tolerate bouncing around in rough seas in order to experience the other joys of boating. Her outlook on boating may be enhanced by a newer boat, but in the long run you are going to need someone who is a boating enthusiast more than you are going to need a newer boat.

There is nothing wrong with a 190 NANTUCKET, it is probably one of the nicest new Boston Whaler boats and quite authentic. I have even given some thought to buying one myself, as my search for a great Outrage 18 has not turned up many local boats (and I don't want to buy one from 2,000 miles away).

I think the forum is still waiting for a first-hand report from a 190 NANTUCKET owner. I'd settle for a good account from someone who just went along for a test ride, at this point.

kamie posted 01-03-2004 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks Jim,

If whalertowne has one at the baltimore show i'll bring back a report. Can't wait to get a ride in one.

Peter posted 01-03-2004 01:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I recently had the opportunity to check out the 190 Nantucket at the NY show. I think its the best looking hull in the Whaler line up. It seems to have very little Sea Ray genes.

I believe that the 18 Outrage and 190 Nanutucket hulls are quite different, particularly at the transom. The 18 Outrage hull is a modified vee hull that carries the distinct vee all the way back to the transom resulting in an approximate 16 to 18 degree deadrise. The hull shape is much like what you will find on the 25 to 30 foot off-shore hulls designed and made today.

The vee on the 190 Nantucket, on the other hand, morphs into a fairly flat pad well prior to reaching the transom. As I recall, there are also lifting strakes that extend the entire length of the hull terminating at the transom. I doubt that you will find many 25 to 30 foot off-shore hulls with this hull shape, except perhaps on the Fountains. The pad forming the flattish transom and the lifting strakes are the reason why the 190 Nantucket achieves very similar WOT performance (mid 40s with a 150 HP motor) despite its extra 800 lbs. Because it has such a flat hull in the stern, as compared to the distinct vee of the 18 Outrage, I suspect that the 190 Nantucket may not be as "at home" in heavy seas as the 18 Outrage is. Being significantly lighter, controlling the speed of the 18 Outrage is probably easier and it is likely to be more responsive to the application of timed power as compared to the 190 with the same power.

Unfortunately, because there is such a significant weight difference, a direct comparison of the rides would be very difficult. Perhaps a comparison between the 19 Outrage II (same hull shape but 600 lbs heavier than the 18 Outrage) and the 190 Nantucket would be better.

In summary, I perceive that the 190 Nantucket was designed to be a trailerable, multi-purpose, family oriented, near-shore boat. In contrast, the 18 Outrage was clearly designed to be a trailerable, off-shore, fishing boat. The hulls are quite different.

kamie posted 01-03-2004 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks Peter,

Hope the NY show was fun. I have heard from lots of folks that the Nantucket is a near shore boat although give how far some on the forums take the Montauk's, 'nearshore' is open to interpretation. :-) I also think that no matter the boat no captin would headout into the perfect storm. It is helpfull to have a boat that will get you home before the storm hits. Personally, I think that BW is positioning the Nantucket to replace the 18/19 Outrage as a nearshore/offshore fishing and family boat.

"Although it draws only 12 inches affording shallow waster operation, the 190 Nantucket's deep-V hull entry and 22" interior freeboard make it equally suited for operation offshore. It's 60-gallon fuel capacity ensures ample range for fishing or crusing" (2/13/03 BW press release)

It will be interesting to see how the boat lives up to their claims. Since I am planning on near shore / Chesapeake Bay I will keep folks posted on how she does.

Moe posted 01-03-2004 07:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
As you've seen from the specs, the 190 Nantucket is a larger boat than the classic 18 Outrage, at 4 inches longer and a whopping 10 inches wider. The 190 is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level, as the new 170 Montauk is to the original. Putting them in perspective, the relative sizes (using Guardian drawings) are shown here:

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/170GDvs170MTvs190GDvs190NT.jpg

At 2050 pounds, with a 510 pound maximum motor weight, the Nantucket's roughly 1,000 pound heavier weight has much more inertia to cut through waves, and resist being tossed around, than the old 1250 pound 18 Outrage with a typical 300 or so pound two-stroke. The analogy of Corvette to Fleetwood is probably overstated, but it's clear the former is better suited to smoother surfaces while the latter is much more stable on rough surfaces. While you could put thicker cushions in the Outrage, there's no way it could be modified to be as stable or comfortable as the 190 Nantucket in heavier seas.

Despite its much heavier weight, the 190 is literally about a ton more bouyant with 1000 pounds, or 33%, more swamped capacity than the 3000 pounds of the 18 Outrage. Think of that 1000 pounds as two 55 gallon drums of salt water.

The 190 Nantucket is more V at the transom than the 150 Sport and 170 Montauk by virtue of a narrower shallow rounded center section, leaving more of the bottom in the V. I don't have a picture of the 18 Outrage's, but the 190's transom is shown here:

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/Transoms/190.jpg

Relative to the differences between them and real off-shore boats, the differences between these two much smaller boats are relatively insignificant, but the nod goes to the larger, heavier Nantucket. I can't think of any place I wouldn't rather be in it versus the 18 Outrage.

Both are fishing boats and neither is really a "family" boat. What only passes for boarding steps on the 150 and 170 may be wide and deep enough to actually seat adults on the 190, but they're still too low, and in the lowest, wettest, and noisiest location on the boat, not to mention in the worst place for weight distribution.

--
Moe

kamie posted 01-03-2004 10:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks Moe,

I started out looking at either the Dauntless/Ventura 16'. Slowly I have moved up from there. If I read between the lines on the BW site, the Ventura is the family boat, the Dauntless is the family boat you can take fishing ( with or without the family) and the Nantucket is the fishing boat you can take your family in. It's odd that all 3 boats (18' Dauntless/Ventura) or 19' Nantucket have roughly the same specs but only the Nantucket is billed to go offshore. Either way I hope to go after some really big fish one day.
http://pcp715660pcs.alxndr01.va.comcast.net/newbrunswick/html/humpback_whales.html

Thanks for all the info

kamie posted 01-03-2004 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks Moe,

I started out looking at either the Dauntless/Ventura 16'. Slowly I have moved up from there. If I read between the lines on the BW site, the Ventura is the family boat, the Dauntless is the family boat you can take fishing ( with or without the family) and the Nantucket is the fishing boat you can take your family in. It's odd that all 3 boats (18' Dauntless/Ventura) or 19' Nantucket have roughly the same specs but only the Nantucket is billed to go offshore. Either way I hope to go after some really big fish one day.
http://pcp715660pcs.alxndr01.va.comcast.net/newbrunswick/html/humpback_whales.html

Thanks for all the info

hooter posted 01-03-2004 11:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Ah'll grant you that the extra beam of the newer model would be a nice improvement to the Outrage 18', but trust me on this, one place you'd rather find yourself in the Classic Outrage 18' would be on the flats in about 11" of skinny water. With a 12" draft, you'd be dead centered in the Nantuckut 190, waitin' for the next high tide; hope you brought a sandwich. You'd still be trollin' around happily in the 18' with its 10" draft, chasin' that next tailin' redfish. The shallow draft of the Outrage 18' wins the day on the flats, every day you might think about goin' there. The weight differential will also make a huge difference when you try to pole that modern gallumux OFF of the reef you've just snuggly encountered in a Nantucket 190. The Outrage 18' is still light enough to move with a pole, but I doubt even Hulk Hogan, down there in Clearwater, FL, would have much fun push polin' the Nantucket off a reef or a mud flat. She's a beauty, but a BIG beauty. So keep that in mind. So long as you're still makin' a choice, trim Corvettes, not fat Caddies, that's the ticket:-!
jimh posted 01-03-2004 11:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
If anyone has a 190 NANTUCKET and someone else an 18 Outrage I hope they will take me out for a boat ride in them this spring. Until then, I don't think I can tell you how the ride in one of them compares to the other.
Peter posted 01-04-2004 04:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Moe writes: "The 190 is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level." I read that as meaning better. I don't see it that way for many reasons, some of which are discussed below.

One reason. By providing the stern quarter seats for comfort at rest (you wouldn't want to be sitting in those underway unless you were wearing a bathing suit and ear plugs on a warm summer day), the 190 doesn't have the twin outboard rigging option. Even though new outboards may be more reliable, if you really go offshore on a regular basis in a small or large boat, you still want the redundancy of twins. If the 190 was the 18 Outrage taken to the next level, you'd have a transom capable of hanging twin outboards on it. Even if the two hulls ride exactly the same, the offshore capability or rigging versatility nod goes to the 18 Outrage.

Another reason. The lighter weight of the 18 Outrage fully loaded with fuel, motor and gear will be well under a 3500 lb maximum towing capacity found on some mid sized SUVs equipped with a V6. The extra 800 lbs of the 190 loaded with gear, engine and a full belly of fuel gets the trailering weight of the 190 up to the point where that same vehicle would be rendered nearly inadequate for towing. If the 190 were taken to the next level it would still have the same easy trailerability. The trailerability nod goes to the 18 Outrage.

Yet another reason. Extra beam (for same length of boat) can be a friend or foe depending on what you plan on doing. For static stability while at anchor for example, the extra beam is usually a friend. However, while underway in rough water, it usually works against you and therefore it is your foe. Although there are many design factors, you will frequently see in the discussion of power boat design that an aspect ratio (length to width) of 3 to 1 or more is highly desirable for rough water applications. Boats having this ratio tend to ride better in rough water than boats that have a lower ratio, everything else being equal. The off shore, single hull go-fast boats are a prime example of boats with high aspect ratios designed to have smooth rides in rough water. With the 10 inches of extra beam but only 4 inches of extra length, the 190's aspect ratio at the water line is likely to be lower than the ratio of the 18 Outrage at the water line. Everything else being equal, the aspect ratio nod goes to the 18 Outrage.

Still yet another reason. How about minimum horsepower needed to plane satisfactorily with a light load? The minimum HP specification suggests to me how responsive the hull will be to playing the throttle in very rough water and how well it will hold plane. 75 HP for the 18 Outrage, 115 HP for the 190 Nantucket. Clear advantage to the Outrage (a.k.a. "the Lean, Mean, Offshore Fishing Machine").

The 190 is a nice boat, actually its a very nice boat, but it is not the classic 18 Outrage taken to the next level. Perhaps the 190 Nantucket is the 180 Dauntless taken to the next level although they seem to have very similar specifications.

If I had to vote for a boat that is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level, I'd have to vote for the 22 Outrage. For nearly the same dry weight as the 190 Nantucket, you could get a Whaler that could be as easy to trailer as the Nantucket, with twice the fuel capacity, having a higher aspect ratio, with more interior room, that is also capable of being rigged with twin outboards and having a minimum HP to plane requirement of 90.

Moe posted 01-04-2004 07:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Peter, we agree on the uselessness of the 190's transom seats, but that's about all.

Let's get real here... the fact that the 18' Outrage has a wider transom is academic. Sure, if you stick to the old, crude, carbed two-strokes, two 60 or 70 hp Yamahas will just fit under the 470 lbs max motor weight (190 Guardian). Forget about two modern two-strokes, such as Optis (75HP=375lbs each), much less two four-strokes, unless you're willing to step down to two carbed 50HP Yamahas at 233 lbs each (EFI Merc and Suzuki 50's are a bit too heavy). Twin outboards on an 18' boat is absurd, especially these days. That's even more true considering the amount of weight they bear on the stern of a lighter boat.

The fact is that a gassed and reasonably loaded 190 Nantucket is still trailerable by a Class II 3500 lb hitch, which is in the mini-SUV (i.e. Ford Escape) capabilities. The popular mid-sized SUVs you mention, i.e. the Ford Explorer and the Grand Cherokee, can be equipped to tow Class III (5,000 lbs) with the V-6 and 7,000 lbs with the V-8. Taken to the next level means a larger, more capable boat. Why would you expect it to be lighter?

In the case of these two boats, it isn't about aspect ratios, which is useful for comparing boats of similar weight proportioned differently. With similar lengths, it's about beam vs weight, as well as hull design, when it comes to smoothness in rough water. The additional beam of the 190 is more than offset by the even greater additional weight. Best of both worlds compared to the 18' Outrage.

When it comes to horsepower, the 190's a bigger boat, so it takes more horsepower to lift it on plane and move it around. What's so unusual about that? That also means it takes more energy from waves to lift it and toss it around. I see this as an advantage over the 18' Outrage in near-shore waters, not a disadvantage.

Your 27' may be an "offshore fishing machine," but neither of these really are. Peter, I see you had the sense to choose much larger for that purpose, and keep a much better flats boat with the 15. If you're going to try to take the Hooter approach with one boat to do both near-shore and flats, I'd say it's a toss-up between the 18' Outrage and the Montauk, depending on how much of each you do.

--
Moe

jimh posted 01-04-2004 08:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Moe proposes a relationship like this:

More weight = better ride

Were this true, one could easily add weight to an Outrage 18 to make it weigh as much as a 190 Nantucket. In fact, you could just drill some holes in the hull and let her soak up some water until she got enough weight to make that ride better. Weigh her down until she's floating at the gunwales, maybe, and really take that ride to the next level.

Peter posted 01-04-2004 09:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Moe, your response reads as though I've said that the 190 isn't a nice boat, on the contrary, it is. All I take issue with is saying that it is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level. It simply isn't.

I owned one for 10 seasons and if it weren't for the wife demanding a cabin for the kids some years ago, I'd still have it. In that 10 seasons I spent well over 1000 hours and traveling more than 10,000 miles on it. I've also trailered it extensively with several different V6 and V8 vehicles. I know its wet and dry capabilities very well.

I guess the folks like Professor Tom featured on page 34 of Cetecea that have twins on their 18 Outrage to go 60 miles off shore for tuna fishing in an 18 foot boat must be not be real. Guess he and Professor Larry must be part of the same absurd cetology academia to think the possibility of rigging an 18 Outrage with twins for certain situations may be a good practice. In any case, would you do Tom's 60 mile offshore trip in the Pacific in a 190 Nantucket? When an engine fails 60 miles offshore for both Tom's 18 Outrage and the 190 Nantucket, which boat gets home without a tow? If you only have limited funds for one boat and really like bringing the tuna home from 60 miles out but also enjoy recreational use from time to time, which boat do you buy? Is the lighter, narrower 18 Outrage having more rigging versatility really less capable? Those pictures sure are telling a different story to me.

And I sure would stick with, if I could, the old fashioned carburated 2-strokes if I'm going off shore like Professor Tom. If you lose a battery or two, you can still pull start them because they don't need a voltage sensitive CPU to run!

When the water gets really big and scary, I'm not talking about a two foot chop here, its all about control and good throttle response helps immensely. A lower HP to weight ratio is not going to help you with throttle response. I submit that the significantly lighter 150 HP 18 Outrage will be better off in those conditions.

Once again, I simply do not agree with your suggestion that the 190 is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level. It's a different boat with a somewhat different usage in mind.

Finally, following the more weight, more beam is better design theory and your observation that I have in my fleet a classic 15, I must ask: is the 150 the classic 15 taken to the next level?

Jerry Townsend posted 01-04-2004 10:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
Jim - I guess it depends on the definition of the word "better". I say this because, for years, many things has been controlled, like it or not, by Newton's Second Law of Motion - namely F = MA (F = force, M = weight / acceleration of gravity, A = acceleration) or rearranging we have A = F/M. Which says that for the same driving force F (speed, wave conditions, et.al.), the vehicle with the greater mass will experience the least acceleration - or the smoother the ride.

Now, if a "better" ride means more motion for the occupants, then the lighter boat will be desired.

And of course, you knew all of this before. --- Jerry/Idaho

hooter posted 01-05-2004 12:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Ah've been followin' along with all this physics. Seems you'd advocate we all sell the Whalers and just buy ourselves each a 100' barge and be done with it?
whalersman posted 01-05-2004 02:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for whalersman  Send Email to whalersman     
hooter,

I think it would depend upon the weight of the barge..
The lighter the barge, the worse it would ride..?
Now , if it weighed in at 500 to 1000 tons, what a sweet ride..?

Seriously, and hooter and others have said this before also;
We cannot judge how another boat (or car) rides unless we have been in that particular boat...

I have been in a Outrage 18... I know how it rides and handles in the situations I have been in... I own one...

I have not been in a 190 Nantucket so I have no real idea of how it rides or handles.... I can only guess..... And my guess is not going to win any contests.....

Moe posted 01-05-2004 04:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Peter, I'm not saying the 18' Outrage isn't a nice boat either. However, the 190 does appear to be Whaler's larger, smoother riding replacement for the 18' Outrage.

I'm curious, Peter, how far out did you take your 18'? And how was it rigged?

Why do you guess something isn't real because I said it was absurd? Someone taking an 18' 60 miles out on a good day doesn't mean a thing. There are days you could get away with it in a 15' with enough gas. Just as there's the possibility that weather could come up that would make a 25' marginal that far out. Personally, I wouldn't go 60 miles out in either of these small boats, even on a good day, much less without a sat phone or 406 EPIRB to summon help.

Besides redundancy, twins mean more weight on the stern, more drag, more fuel consumption, lower top speed, and twice the probability of an engine-related failure. Carbs are more likely to fail (from jet stoppages, sticking floats, etc) than a modern electronic fuel injection (EFI). Carbed two-strokes are more likely to foul plugs. All are more likely to occur than one, much less two simultaneously, modern and more rugged AGM batteries failing!

The probability of human failure, like winding up in weather beyond the small boat's capability, is certainly higher than probability of a modern engine failing. Limited funds is no excuse for not having enough boat.

Let me straighten a few things out, Peter. first, in keeping with the spirit of CW, it's carbureted, not carburated.

Second, when you're talking about throttle response, you're talking about how the engine responds to changes in the throttle. A engine with a modern sequential port EFI is much more responsive than a crude carb where air/fuel ratio goes whacko momentarily every time you change throttle position.

Peter, I suspect when you said throttle response, you really meant acceleration. Rated HP to weight only tells you how the rig is going to perform at wide open throttle (WOT) at the high rpms where the horsepower rating is acheived. Acceleration comes from torque applied to a load. With identical engines, the heavier boat is likely going to be running a shallower pitch prop, which effectively increases the torque to account for the heavier load, and improves the acceleration. Yes, this will result in higher engine speed at any given mph, and a lower top speed at WOT (where rated HP occurs), given the same red line, but it means the heavier boat will be no less "responsive" (i.e. accelerate any less) to changes in throttle. Even with the same prop pitch, at less than WOT conditions, the heavier boat can accelerate just as well with greater application of throttle.

I don't expect you to agree the 190 is the 18 Outrage taken to the next level, but it clearly appears to be so. And yes, the 150 is the 15 taken to the next level, but let's not hijack this thread by getting into that here.

--
Moe

erik selis posted 01-05-2004 06:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
I have to agree with Moe on many issues in this discussion.
True, the 18'Classic Outrage is a beautiful boat and one of my favorites but is the 190 Nantucket is a higher level of the 18 Classic Outrage? Or should we say the 190 Nantucket is the 19'Outrage II to the next level?
Boston Whaler eliminated the advantage of the twin engines ever since the 19 Outrage II arrived on the scene in the early 90's. These days, the first BW boat in the line-up with twin engines is the 270 Outrage. A pretty expensive boat if your just talking engine redundancy. You just can't compare the classic Outrage models to the Outrage models they started building in the mid 90's. They should have changed the name. At least for the smaller Outrage models.
If you look at the "Legend" models today, you could say that they all, in some way, take their corresponding "Classic" brothers to a higher level. Which one was the next "Classic" on the list? Right, the Classic Outrage. So it seems the 190 would be the logical 18 Outrage follow-up. Higher level??
The low transom of the Classic Outrage and the ability to get rid of water quickly was one of the great advantages if ever getting into trouble. Note that this advantage could be a large disadvantage in any other boat than a Boston Whaler. Think of being swamped from behind in a Grady White.
This advantage also disappeared when the 19 Outrage II was launched.

Is the 190 Nantucket the 18 Classic Outrage taken to the next level??? I don't know. But I do know that the 170 Montauk certainly is the 17-foot Montauk taken to a much higher level! And the 170 Montauk is getting very close to the 18 Outrage.

Extra weight:
Softer ride? (190) No doubt about it.
Larger fuel consumption? (190) No doubt about it. Maneuverability? The Classic should respond faster.
Towing? I don't believe so. Most who are towing an 18 Classic outrage already have a larger SUV or truck.

BTW, Happy New Year to all.
Erik

jimh posted 01-05-2004 08:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
How to you tell when a boat weighs enough?
HAPPYJIM posted 01-05-2004 09:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for HAPPYJIM  Send Email to HAPPYJIM     
I have heard from the commercial fisherman that when the water starts coming over the gunnels....throw 1 fish back.
DaveH posted 01-05-2004 09:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for DaveH  Send Email to DaveH     
With regard to weight and boats, for equally sized boats differing only in increased weight the following is true for the heavier design:

* Increased fuel consumption
* Increased fuel storage requirements
* Increased power requirements
* Increased draft
* Decreased maneuverability
* Decreased cargo carrying capacity
* Decreased swamped capacity
* Higher cost to manufacture (generally) due to more material
* Decreased response to waves action which is not desirable at the limits in heavy seas. (I will explain this in excruciating detail if needed)

Do not believe that weight is good for boats, planes, cars or any other self-powered device. Weight is an enemy to efficiency and acceleration.

Peter posted 01-05-2004 09:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Moe,

Guess I should throw a few bags of cement in my 15 or 27. That will take them part of the way to the next level. ;) BTW, I didn't keep the 15, I just acquired it.

My 18 Outrage had a single 150. I never took it more than 12 miles offshore (always well within VHF range of shore) in a densely populated boating area. That crude, carbureted single 150 never had a jet stoppage or a sticky float. Carried only one battery (all it ever needed) and I had that go on me once (my fault as I was pushing the lifetime envelope with it). No problem, I just pull started that cold, crude, carbureted motor.

As to twins having twice the probability of engine failure, guess the offshore boat designers have it all wrong when they design offshore boats with crude twin diesel motors.

I'm not here to pick a fight with you but I just don't buy the greater weight/beam means "next level" or better thing whether its the 150, 170 or 190, that's all. There is a lot more to a boat design than a "comfy" ride that may or may not result from extra weight or beam. Boat design is all about trade offs.

The beauty of the 18 Outrage was its versatility. It could be configured as low budget offshore fishing boat or a recreational center console cruiser with functional stern seating. The 190 Nantucket does not carry that versatility forward so I submit that it is not the 18 Outrage taken to the next level.

Eric, you apparently forgot about the 240 Outrage. Still expensive, however.

erik selis posted 01-05-2004 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Yes Peter,
You are right about the 240 Outrage. My apologies.
Erik
DaveH posted 01-05-2004 10:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for DaveH  Send Email to DaveH     
I guess I better explain since Jerry Townsend and I are both engineers and have differing responses to Newton's Law, F=MA.

The law is true obviously, but the desirable effect of acceleration is the boat's ability to respond quickly to wave action:

Imagine the old World War II film footage of destroyers in heavy head seas. Their bow profile is very slender and designed for speed-having very little displacement. When these ships plowed into a steep wave, it seemed like an eternity for the bow to rise up and throw a wall of water aft along with it. Likewise, in a beam sea the ship would roll these slender craft (length to beam ratio was high) sometimes 90 degrees (almost knockdown) before righting bouyancy would take over. A lighter ship would respond to these exact sea conditions better since acceleration is both positive and negative (sometimes called deceleration). The lighter ship (all other things being equal) generally will absorb and respond to these forces faster.

Now let's apply this destroyer analogy to our Whaler. The classic Whaler bow is broad with an increasing volume (displacement) from the waterline to the gunnel. The Whaler design allows a very quick response to steep waves (follwing seas or head-on) by climbing over the wave without digging in. A heavier whaler would require more displacement to respond (accelerate upwards and over) and therefore need to dig deeper into the wave.

Some have mentioned that the ability to apply engine throttle and quickly respond is a good thing. I agree and it happens faster in a lighter boat. There was a response that one could just apply more liberal doses of throttle to act upon a heavier boat. That is true only if the engine is larger, a similar sized boat and engine will always respond more slowly on a heavier boat.

To extend the analogy further, think of a Mini Cooper and a Hummer2. The Mini is light, has great feel of the road, responds quickly to changes in steering, gets great gas mileage, and accelerates well with only 163 Hp. Now consider this same Mini with the weight of the Hummer2. The only positive thing about this extra weight is that it doesn't feel the changes in the road as well-is that a good thing considering all the negatives? Likewise, is the ride better in a heavier 18 Outrage when loaded down with 4 people and gear? It just doesn't respond to the waves the way it did when it was lighter. I for one, always opt for lighter and quicker.

To sum up the evolution argument of the Classic Outrage 18 versus the Nantucket, they are different in every way except being Boston Whalers- and that's the best thing of all. No comparison needed.

Tom2697 posted 01-05-2004 10:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
I must agree that a heavier boat will ride better in rough seas. But, a beamier boat will ride worse. Every time that the hull leaves the surface and tries to reenter, the greater bouyancy provided by the larger wetted surface will prevent this hull from "splashing down". This is what most of us call pounding. This is why most manufacturers of rough-sea vessels shoot for the 3:1 ratio or better. The magical "3:1" ratio is about as wide as you want to go before noticable ride degredation occurs, although this ratio does differ based on the hull shape (deadrise). I've never been in a Nantucket but I must assume the ride would be similar to the Outrage.

Regarding something being taken to the next level, not all redesigns are successful...remember the late 70's Ford Thunderbird? Is this better than the designs of the 50's and 60's? The '02 retro-Thunderbird redesign was so successful that it is being discontinued next year. I'm not saying this is the case with the 190. But until a direct comparison has been made by actually running both boats, I will not make a decision as to which might be better.

As for running 60 miles out in either boat...I'm probably running out that far this coming weekend in my single engined Outrage 18! I'll do it for three reasons: (1) I trust my boat, motor, and most importantly, my captain; (2) there are always shrimpers or oil rigs within VHF range; and (3) that is where the fish are!

kamie posted 01-05-2004 12:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Thanks folks.. I have learned a lot.

I will have to say that like it or not BW is pointing to the Nantucket as a replacement for the Outrage. Their marketing material, not mine. Ride and comfort are in the eye or rear, back, knees of the beholder. What is comfort to one person is not comfort to another. Different boats or the same boat in different conditions. There are never typical days on the water when you are at the mercy of the wind and the waves.

Peter, you said you would take your Outrage out 12 miles. Why not 13 or 20? I suspect that it wasn't because if you crossed the 12 mile line your boat would instantly sink, but that was the limit of your comfort. Tom is planning on running out 60 miles this weekend, probably because as he said, he is comfortable with his boat, his abilities and he knows that there will be folks that can assist him if necessary. I agree with you that the Outrage is a versatil boat and you could with the proper skill make it almost anything you want. At some point in the future, if I have the space and time and need something to keep me off the streets I would love an older Outrage to tinker with, refinsh some teak and generally modify to what I am looking for. I currently do not have the skill ( except in refinishing the teak) to do that, nor the confidence to undertake the project.

As for me, will I probably purchase the Nantucket, absolutly. It is after all and most importantly a whaler. Do I think it will server my needs as I have defined them? A boat that will allow me to go out with my family and friends, fish, provide a platform for wildlife viewing, enjoy being on the water both on the rivers and bay around my house and later off shore, absolutly. Will I run it out 12 or 60 miles off shore.. maybe, but on the first day I will probably take her out into the river, do a few laps and come back, dock her and be happy. Not because I think the boat will sink, but I will not have developed the confidence in myself and my ability to handle things. That only comes with time.

Jerry Townsend posted 01-05-2004 04:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
kamie - the opportunity to learn is one of the benefits of the CW website. Regardless of your choice - I'm sure you and your family will enjoy your Whaler.

DaveH - We don't have different responses - that is, previously, we were discussing "smoothness" of the ride. You bring in the recovery response - and your points are correct. And, of course, many understand that more weight means more power (horsepower and gasoline).

Everyone should realize that naval vessels are designed as displacement hulls while a whaler is designed as a planning hull. I hope those are the correct desciptions - as I am not a marine engineer. As such, the two will not, by definiton, respond similarily. Regardless, Newton's laws of motion apply to both.

Everyone should realize that some of the things discussed are relative - that is, more weight generally means stabilized motion, more weight generally requires more power, et.al. Now, there is no desired weight nor power, nor ... - instead, the boats are, in all probability, designed as a many faceted compromise involving principal considerations including performance, safety, costs, public relations, et.al.

Many talk about weight and draft. But few realize that a lot of weight doesn't mean a lot of increased draft. That is, with a 17 foot tug with a beam of say 7 feet, an increased weight of 500 pounds will cause an increase in draft of 0.8 inches (in fresh water) - not much for the 500 pound increased weight. Now, that is with the boat just setting there - with the boat up on plane, the increased draft is more complicated and depends on the hull design. --- Jerry/Idaho

Tom2697 posted 01-05-2004 04:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
One question I have never seen answered is: the draft that is stated in the catalogs, does it include a motor on the transom? Regardless, if my boat floats in 10" of water (with the motor) I can guarantee that I will get stuck in 11" of water...unless all of my passengers and I get out and push. Even then, there is usually at least one rock or oyster bed that will send shivers up my spine when it gouges my hull. Hence, I usually limit myself to water that is about double my stated draft.
Peter posted 01-05-2004 06:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Kamie, to answer your question, within the Sound where I did the majority of my boating in the Outrage, although I would do 60 mile round trip runs without hesitation, 12 miles was about the farthest away I could get from land. It wasn't a confidence thing with the boat or motor at all, just a physical limit. However, if I were regularly doing the 30 to 60 mile tuna fishing runs in the open ocean, I would have rigged it with twins. I'm not the kind to make plans that count on folks I don't know being out there and available to help 60 miles out. With my luck, the day I'd need them would be the day they wouldn't be there.

With reference to Dave's discussion--I went from the 18 Outrage to a 22 Revenge with a 225 EFI motor with excellent engine throttle response per Moe's comment on old versus new technology. Of course the ride on the heavier, higher aspect ratio 22 Revenge was generally better than the 18 Outrage. However, when seas got so big that the fastest I could go with either boat was minimal plane speed (both of those boats would easily stay on plane below approximately 15 MPH), I always felt that the greater agility of the 18 Outrage made negotiating such conditions a bit easier. That's not saying that the 22 Revenge didn't do well in such conditions, rather it performed quite well and as expected from the Dougherty design.

It could very well be that Whaler is marketing the 190 Nantucket as a replacement for the Outrage, but what Outrage? I think they are too many generations removed from the original to be making any reference to it. If the're talking about the short lived portly 2000 18 Outrage (18'4" length, 8'3" beam, 2500 lb dry weight) then I would agree that the lighter weight, better aspect ratio, more eye appealing 190 Nantucket is an excellent replacement.

Sounds like the 190 will work just fine for you. But do yourself a favor if you can afford to -- put the maximum HP on it, you will never regret it. When two foot-itis kicks in, it will be much easier to sell.


kamie posted 01-05-2004 10:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Peter,

The boat I was comparing was a 1982 18' Outrage.

I think I have posted the wish list for my craft elsewhere but here is the list....

BW 190 Nantucket
150 HP Mercury w/ Smartcraft gauges
bow cushions
Pedastal seats
54 QT Cooler w/ cushions
AM/FM CD w/ 2 speakers (how come it comes with 4 speakers in the Dauntless/Ventura?)
--------------------------
-- Potential questions ---
Total Fishing Package? Not crazy about the tackle drawers but the rest works for me
Sun Top - actually a yes the question is from BW or Mills


As for maxing out the HP, The lowest HP I would put on the boat would be the 135. Always better have more in case you need it than to leave yourself wanting it when you don't have it. I am sure the boat for a lot of folks does just fine at 115 HP.


erik selis posted 01-06-2004 04:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Kamie said:

quote:
Will I run it out 12 or 60 miles off shore.. maybe, but on the first day I will probably take her out into the river, do a few laps and come back, dock her and be happy. Not because I think the boat will sink, but I will not have developed the confidence in myself and my ability to handle things. That only comes with time.

These are wise words Kamie and reflect exactly the way I feel.

I think you will have a fine boat with the 190 Nantucket of your choice.

Erik


DaveH posted 01-06-2004 08:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for DaveH  Send Email to DaveH     
Tom2697:

The draft specifications will vary depending on the manufacturer. A general rule-of-thumb is that for an outboard powered boat, the draft is usually reported without the engine, and considered the "dry weight" of the boat (no fuel, water, etc). When you move to larger boats such as I/O and inboard boats, the draft is reported as dry weight plus the addition of the standard engine package. The I/O boats will report the hull draft with the sterndrive in the highest position and the inboards will include the draft with the running gear. Again, this is a general rule subject to be broken at the manufacturer's discretion.

Peter posted 01-06-2004 08:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Seems to me that to specify draft without the outboard engine(s) is to provide worthless information. I would have read the draft specification as with the engine, tilted up of course. Perhaps they specify it with the lightest and smallest engine that still renders the boat usable.

jimh posted 01-06-2004 08:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
For Boston Whaler boats, the specification for draft is explained in a footnote. The exact wording of the footnote might vary from year to year, but it typically says:

"Draft for outboard models with engine(s) tilted clear of water. May vary slightly depending on load or engine size." (From 1988 Boston Whaler catalogue.)

The same wording is given in the 2003 year catalogue.

Moe posted 01-06-2004 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I've checked mine pretty carefully. Whaler says it's 7".

With all the options, including the heavy 4-stroke EFI, TWO full gas tanks (it comes with one) and 30 lbs of safety gear, it's right at 6" in freshwater with no people, ice chests, etc in the boat. So I have to believe the Whaler spec includes an allowance for at least SOME people and gear.

At 6" draft, the aftmost deck is 1" above the waterline, so at 7", it's right at the waterline.
--
Moe

RonB posted 01-06-2004 04:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
Peter,


This is certainly an interesting thread.

Just my 2 cents. I own one of those short lived portly 2000 18ft Outrages (18'4" length, 8'3 beam, 2500 lb dry weight) and I have also spent a good deal of time on the Nantucket. I have been in both the 2003 190 Nantucket and 2000 18 Outrage as well as a 2003 170 Montauk in the Atlantic off the New Jersey coast and I do not hesistate to say that I'd rather be in the Outrage than the Nantucket or Montauk when the weather turns foul. No disrespect to the Nantucket owners out there, (especially to my buddy who takes me fishing in his), the Nantucket is a fantastic craft that handles seas admirably, but the 2000 18 Outrage is a much different boat than the Nantucket. I can only assume why BW built the Nantucket, it might have been to bridge the gap between the Montauk and the 210 Outrage and still keep the price within reason. I shudder to think of what the 2000 18 Outrage would cost today if it were still manufactured.

Being more "eye appealling" IMHO is only in the eye of the beholder.

An interesting question to ask is that if you could have any of the three boats, in showroom condition, with their max horsepower ratings, regardless of price, which would you choose. I might lean towards the lighter 1982 Outrage with twin outboards for many of the reasons already mentioned, especially since I am just under 5000lb with my 5000lb max Toyota Quad Cab when pulling my "portly" Outrage. : )

BTW I also attended the NY Boat Show and thought the Grady White display was quite impressive as well. They presented one product while BW seemed teamed up with the Sea Ray team. I guess that's not entirely bad but I would think there are perceived advantages of presenting yourself as an exclusive dealer of a particular brand of boat. I had the feeling that if I was talking to a BW salesman about something I did not like about the BW Conquest that I was going to be led over the the Sea Ray 290 Amberjack. That was my feeling anyway. I shouldn't complain because Surfside is who I bought my Whaler from and will likely buy my next Whaler from (in case any Surfside folks are lurking out here).

;^)

Happy Boating!
Ron

Buckda posted 01-06-2004 09:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
This is a fantastic thread - and I certainly am thankful for many of the informed opinions.

I just wanted to bring up a couple of other things:

I believe that twins may not necessarily consume additional fuel over a boat equipped with a single engine. For an example, I will use the only boat that is capable of being rigged with twins; the 18' Outrage (classic).

It would be interesting to see fuel consumption data for a boat equipped with a single 150 HP, versus one equipped with twin 90's - I think that you might be suprised at cruising speeds because the twins will be loafing along at a lower RPM than the single.

The other point is also about twins. For many (most) people, twins on a boat that is less than 20 feet long is probably "overkill". But if you do a lot of cruising (as LHG does) and you'd prefer not to rely on the help of others (even if you've paid insurance for it)...and finally (perhaps most importantly) if you can afford the additional cost and insurance, the OPTION of having twins is very important.

First, it signifies a commitment to the "serious" segment of the boating market. Many top companies established their brands and reputations through similar approaches, and Boston Whaler is no different.

Second, it IMPLIES better quality. Who would rig a boat with twins only to also equip it with equipment that is likely to fail?

By the way - this is a good time to address another point: The likelyhood of both engines failing at the same time. If rigged properly and equipped with redundancy systems; it is VERY unlikely that both engines will fail at the same time, leaving you stranded. But I also submit that someone who ventures offshore with a single engine that is untested/not maintained properly is foolish to begin with - but of course, Murphy's law rules the seas.

Now - does the lack of a twin powerplant option mean that the Nantucket (or even the Outrage II) are any less of a quality product than the classic 18? I would be very hesitant to make that statement.

The new boats reflect new/different thinking and direction on the part of BW and reflect a changing marketplace. Women now have much more power over household purchasing decisions. Practicality, functionality, user-friendliness and lower costs are ever important to the vast majority of buyers - and therefore to the companies that supply those people with products.

BW still makes the old hulls available through the CGPD division - only because there is still a market for them; and really, let's be honest. If you're gonna equip an 18' boat with twins, price is probably not the *MOST* important factor. Those types of individuals are used to (and have the wherewithal to) specify what they want and purchase it. That option is still available to them.

I personally love the look of the new Nantucket, however am unlikely to purchase one because I really do prefer the look and characteristics of the classic 18. But I do not delude myself for one second to think that a larger percentage of likely buyers in today's marketplace would rather have the Nantucket, therefore serving as the impetus for BW to provide it as an option in their fleet.

The best (and in my mind, most important) thing about the Nantucket is that it really is the first model in a long time to pay homage to the classic boats, with equipment that really harkens back to the time when Whalers were a "gentleman's boat" - expensive to buy, but finely outfitted and equipped for discriminating buyers. And that is a very good thing.

Dave

TG_190 posted 01-07-2004 03:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
RonB and company,

I am Ron's friend with a 190 (135HP, Fishing package, bimini). I have 170hrs on the nantucket, all but 4 of which are on the ocean. I would say 2-4' waves and 10-15kt winds are the average conditions I have seen.

Seeing as how Ron lives 30 miles up the Hudson, and to the best of my knowledge has been out on the ocean with his 18' outrage once, I think his preference is based on personal bias and pride more than reality. That said, the 2000 18' outrage is still somewhere near the sweet spot of what I would call a balanced boat. I was on it once in a light chop, and to be honest it handled it well, but so would most any boat. I have no experience in big seas with the 18', but neither does Ron really. Opinions not based on relevant experience, don't really contribute to anybody's understanding.

It has taken me nearly 165 hours of use in varying sea conditions to formulate my opinion about the Nantucket, and it is a great boat. I did add trim tabs, and I love them, and it allows me to plow through a lot of stuff, and chine walk on moderate chop with ease. Without the tabs, the boat was fine, but any boat would benefit from tabs, and the improvement and versatility they provide is excellent. I made the decision to get tabs based on an earlier boat I had.

IMHO, boat handling assessments with different hulls and motors has to take into account too many variables. The height, frequency, direction of waves, the center of gravity of the boat, the aspect ratio, the hull weight, HP, pitch of props, throttle response etc., etc.

All in all, I could not expect a better handling boat in the 19' range. Maybe Ronb will take me out on the ocean some time and prove his point. Until then...its a portly shortlived model.

Just kidding, the 18' is a beautiful boat, and we wouldn't trade each other. Ain't it funny how we get attatched to foam filled fiberglass?

hooter posted 01-07-2004 03:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Ah see the makin' of some certitude now so scientific and exact as t' satisfy even the most scrupulous, pocket-protected engineers in this group. You know who it is Ah refers to (and so do they). Why not put these two friends, the short-lived and the new-born (both rather portly in mah opinion, compared with mah Classic 18'), put them to a bit of a match race. Y'all wait 'till the March gales are blowin' proper and then put your rigs through some side-by-side maneuvers in a nice 4' chop. Run with the wind, again it and quarterin fore and astern. Run at trollin' speeds, at full power, whatever the conditions and the hulls will permit. Swap captains and boats mid-way through the trials, so both scientists can get the full comparison, and then close with a proper dinner and evenin' of adult bev'ridges. Next day, you both sit down to the keys and telegraph your independent findings to the interested public here at CW. Ah'd pay good money to be on one of those boats with you but will likely have t'do with just the written reports, even if Ah was t'be invited. At least we'd have some direct experience from a pair of cross-biased reporters to fuel this lovely li'l argument, Ah mean, discussion:-!
RonB posted 01-07-2004 05:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
Folks,

Geez...you see what I get if I dare consider that my 2000 18 Outrage is a safer/nicer boat than the 190 Nantucket?

Never mind my sea experience which includes an unlimited tonnage, any ocean, 3rd mates license, an honorable discharge as Lieutenant from the US Navy, and past employment on both ocean-going tugs and oil tankers, my buddy TG_19 has to point out that I keep my Outrage 30 miles up the Hudson River. Well, that's where I live. Sounds as if I never had a catwalk bent on an oil tanker from a rogue beam sea during a hurricane, taken multiple waves over the bow or littered my deck with flying fish.

According to TG_19 I'm just one of those fair weather Hudson River brown water sailors who only catches catfish, eels and white perch. Well, although that's not entirely true, at least when I do catch those catfish, I have fish boxes to put them in and nice toe rails to slip my feet under. I wonder how many stripers can be stored in the Nantuckets 54Qt cooler without bending them in half TG_19? You can always stick a few small porgies in the live well, (if your bait finds a new home). Geez, I shouldn't say these things, some folks think the 190 Nantucket was a replacement for the 2000 18 Outrage. I do not think so.

I should stop now or TG_19 will never take me on his boat again! I'm a little longer toothed than my friend TG_19 and I'm sure somewhere down the line he will see the truth, although I must admit he is an accomplished fisherman and mariner.

Long live the Outrage (and the Nantucket)!

Happy Boating!
RonB

TG_190 posted 01-07-2004 05:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Ron,

I fail to see how your experience on those big boats from 20 years ago matter when considering the handling of a 19' boat.

Toe rails, and fish boxes shouldn't weigh 500lbs. The ridiculous euro transom of the 18' probably weighs a 1000#s.
And you can't even put twins on the damn thing...No wonder whaler dropped the portly little tub from the lineup.

The 54qt cooler is fine. The 60qt livewell works great both as a cooler, and for keeping bait alive. I can easily strap a bigger cooler in front of the console.

Now, what do you got man? An expensive, short, fat little whaler.

Holy Cow posted 01-07-2004 06:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Wow:
This the the Best/Just Great! Can't wait to see you all at Great Point this summer when I am tooling around in my 170M! I will be the innocent by stander obseving the 2-4 chop chine walking! I bet the extra designed 1000 pounds helps level out those 2-4 wavess . I assume that the 18 OutRage doesn't need trim tabs! HC
On January 3rd I was out 5 miles off the water tower and Jennettes Pier near Nags Head and watched a light blue 18 foot Outrage walk the dog over 2-3 foot waves and all I could do in my 170 Montauk was do 3000 -3500 rpms with a four 90 Merc in those seas. No way could I keep up with that 18 outrage as she was walking over those waves like they weren't even there! I just called my BW dealer for a possible trade up! The 170 Montauk works great with the 1-2 and occassioanl 2 1/2 foot chop, but in no way could she stand on top of those 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 footers! Do all the OUTRAGES have this capacity to chine walk the chop? Thanks! HC
Holy Cow posted 01-07-2004 10:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
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. The hull shape retained the refined bow lines with the classic "smirk" (formed by carrying the line of the runners up and across the bow). The resulting Outrage-18 hull was able to provide excellent lateral stability, but offered much improved ride in waves and chop compared with the 17-foot hull. The 18-Outrage was designed for operating in big waves and big water, to be able to go offshore and fish in the ocean.

For a boat to be successful for offshore fishing, it must be wide and stable enough to provide a platform that resists rolling uncomfortably while drifting or trolling, yet be capable of travelling at planning speeds through moderate waves without a harsh ride. The 18-Outrage met these requirements perfectly. Also, its hull-form proved to be extremely stable in a following sea, a situation frequently encountered when running back to the harbor from ocean fishing. And a final plus, the hull was still relatively lightweight and easily planed, so good performance could be obtained without excessive horsepower on the transom.

From the ContinuousWave --> Whaler --> Reference --> 18-Outrage
The 18-Outrage 1981-1990

RonB posted 01-07-2004 11:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
TG_190,

First, my apologies to Kamie, as this thread has gone off on a tangent. Whichever boat you choose, I'm sure you'll be satisifed and you won't go wrong. This will be my last post on this thread (Scouts honor), TG_190 and I will continue our friendly conversation in the parking lot :^)

TG_190, why the rant? It sounds like your beginning to realize that maybe your Nantucket does not match up too well with an Outrage, whatever year it might be? That's okay, come over to the other side, don't be afraid, it's ok. I know you're thinking of a bigger Grady center console, but why not a bigger BW (like an Outrage)?

When BW drops their flagship line of fishing machines, the Outrages, and starts making a 240, 270, and 320 Nantucket, then you can tell me how much better your Nantucket is than my Outrage, but until then most educated non-biased folks know that an Outrage (even my "expensive, short, fat little whaler") will easily open up a can of whoop a#% on your small cooler, smaller fuel tank, fishbox-less and toe-rail-less Nantucket. Make sure you have a fish bag when you catch something bigger than your live bait well.

Fair winds and following seas my friend, oh wait, that was something we said 20 years ago and TG_190 might not understand the sentiment. Let me try again,...ah...dude, like, be cool..,ok?

Happy Boating,
RonB :^)

kamie posted 01-08-2004 01:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Ron

First there no apologies are necessary.

These are two fine craft, first and foremost because they are whalers. There will always be those who say they don't build them like they used too and in some cases that is true. I'm not sure if either boat is better than the other, one maybe more suited to a given task, or one person may prefer one boat over the other because for them it just works better for their current needs.

What you have are two boats that are realtively the same size. One is lighter than the other and that has a given set of advantages. The second boat is heaver and that has other advantages. With the advantages come disadvantages in both cases, it's the tradeoff that you always have no matter if you are talking boats, cars, planes.. Do I think that a 190 Nantucket could go 60 miles off shore. Yep, I do. People take their Outrages 60 miles off shore with single engines so I can't see where the Nantucket will get 59.9 Miles and sink. Will it be a better ride than the Outrage? I think that depends on the person riding it the boat, the weather, the captin, how they are feeling that day and a host of other things. Go out one day it may be fine, the next may be pure hell.

I would love an early 80's Outrage with some nice wood on her. I think when they are finished and decked out they are beautiful. Sorry, I have a thing for fine wood, good wood furniture, wooden boats and wood on boats. (beautiful wood racing sloop - http://www.wiannosenior.org/boats/135new.gif ) I think wood adds an element of class. But to find a boat like that in great condition is a search and if she wasn't in tip top shape, that becomes a project. Currently I don't have the room or the time to start a project like that and for what I want to use the boat for, the Nantucket I think will do just fine.

However, if anyone in the Chesapeake Bay area has a nice Outrage and they want to swap rides on the Nantucket when I get her .. just let me know.

rmart posted 01-08-2004 09:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for rmart  Send Email to rmart     
Kamie,
Seeing that you are a wianno senior fan, were you aware of the terrible fire that Crosby Boat Yard (the maker of these beauties) just had a terrible fire that destroyed more than half the fleet of Wianno's and millions of dollars worth of damage?
TG_190 posted 01-08-2004 10:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Ron,

Your magnanimous apology may trivialize the issues, but it doesn't change the fact that your asessment in response to Peter is not based on enough experience with either boat.

The OR18' maybe be marginally better under a very limited subset of conditions, but I don't think it is wise to portray it as safer or better. I would GUESS that the Nantucket performs as good or better under most conditions that a boater will encounter, as I feel the manueverability, and response (accelleration + Throttle response is a function of EFI, Hull weight, shape, and prop) make up for a lot of keel weight when the conditions get really scary. The swamped capacities...are also "differnt".

In addition, I have well over 200mi of range on 60 gallons of fuel, as my average mpg as measured on the smartcraft guages w/ the 135Opti is 4.3mpg (confirmed the accuracy at the pump as well). I can only guess that your fuel consumption on the OR18 is higher with the same engine and conditions. In this size of boat having more than 200miles of range is not likely ever to be an important limitation.

As far as heading out 60miles...I wouldn't unless I had a guarantee from God that It would be OK. I have often had my boat out (East- not along the shore) over 25 miles. I have a "calculation" that I perform based on the following: Given I head out in decent conditions, what is the worst case for the speed at which the weather conditions can deteriorate such that I would feel threatened vs. the speed at which I can return under those conditions and the likelihood of a mechanical failure. I put my limit at 30miles in that boat off NJ (when out of thunderstorm season), and I minimize the risks as much as possible, short of having a kicker installed. These 18'/19' BWs do inspire confidence, but they are still small boats that can tip over, and a swamped boat in scary seas would be very scary.

No doubt, the OR18 was more expensive to manufacture, and is a very fine boat, but "better", just like beauty, may lie in the eyes, hands, wallet, and feet of the beholder. Peace.

Holy Cow posted 01-08-2004 11:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
What other Whalers are there that give you this great 18OR ability and are within the 18 to 20 foot mark? Is the 18 Dauntless as good of a wave walker? Does the 20OR have the same characteristics as the 18OR? I am sure the Weight and Width helps! But I am mostly looking for the smirk of the 18OR and chine to bow shape! I am really looking for options here! Love it! HC
kamie posted 01-08-2004 11:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
rmart,
I am aware of the fire. It is a very sad day indeed. The Wianno Sr is a great boat to sail, not the most comfortable boat but if she got you out there she would bring you back. I learned to sail as a kid on a Senior, same time i developed a love for Whalers.
Moe posted 01-08-2004 11:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
For those not familiar with the heavy, beamy 18 Outrage, here's an archived Whaler web page about it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000301233722/www.whaler.com/Boats/outrage18.html

I find it interesting that in the drawing, the helm is on the starboard side of the console, and in the picture, it's on the port side of the console.
--
Moe

kamie posted 01-08-2004 11:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
rmart,
I am aware of the fire. It is a very sad day indeed. The Wianno Sr is a great boat to sail, not the most comfortable boat but if she got you out there she would bring you back. I learned to sail as a kid on a Senior, same time i developed a love for Whalers.
Peter posted 01-08-2004 02:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Moe, the drawing is of the British market version of the Outrage. ;)
jimh posted 01-08-2004 09:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re the drawing of the 18-Outrage on the website which has inadvertently been flipped so as to reverse left-to-right direcitons: I always knew that once they let in-line graphics on the world wide web it was doomed.

:-)

--jimh

Tom2697 posted 01-09-2004 10:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
There are actually companies that do this on purpose. McMaster-Carr and Grainger often reverse the image of a product in their catalogs when they are selling a "generic" product. They don't want us to be able to determine who makes the product until it arrives because the product can often be found cheaper.
Buckda posted 01-09-2004 10:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
Or...it could be a simple mistake.

When designing brochures, photos are often inversed for creative and design element purposes. When it is a photo of a person, you don't notice it because we (humans in general, but especially especially models) are symmetrical..so it does not matter.

In this case, it could simply be that the image was not proofed carefully, but was originally inversed for a photo in a brochure where they needed the boat "pointed" in the opposite direction to draw the eye to the text, etc.

Sharp eye though!

erik selis posted 01-09-2004 11:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Dave,
It may be that beautiful models are perfectly symmetrical. If they are wearing a minimum of clothing, a picture of them could be flipped without anybody noticing this.:) On the other hand if they are wearing a t-shirt with the name "Mercury" on it, you would see the mirror image of the name "Mercury".
In this case the boat is our model and the "Mercury" on the motor is in the correct position. JimH and Peter were referring to the drawing and not the photo.
Erik
RonB posted 01-09-2004 01:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
The boarding latter on the drawing is in the wrong position as well, another give away that the drawing is flip flopped.
RonB posted 01-09-2004 02:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
Boarding "ladder".

It's cold up here, suffering a bit of brain freeze. : )

stefan posted 01-12-2004 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for stefan  Send Email to stefan     
this is first time I've checked the "Post-classic" part of CW. look what I find, a thread w/ some saying the nantucket is newer, better version of outrage.

well my friends, as an owner of an 82 18' outrage, I must say, in only having owned this boat since thanksgiving, and it being my first boat purchase, THIS IS ONE BEAUTFUL GIRL.

I just refinished the teak, and heads turn as I cruise the river out to the Gulf. I have no fear of going 30, 40 50 60 miles out (i've been on boats all my life, just never owned one-why own one when you're freinds have 'em-LOL) This baby will not fail me, no matter what condditions are (and thanks to sea tow:-). I have freinds with bigger boats who thought I was crazy on some days when the wind was and waves were up a notch, but all I had to say was
"no worries, I have an outrage"
and they smiled and wanted to go with me!

So I can only attest to my experience In short time I've owned this jewel, I can say nothing of the nantucket, I'm sure It's an exellent craft, I've heard and seen pictures.

But comparing it to a classic outrage is an injustice

kamie posted 01-12-2004 08:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Stefan,

I am glad that you are happy with your boat. I would love to see pictures. I do think given that BW is not making the outrage in the 18/19 foot range and they have introduced the Nantucket and in marketing materials indicated that the Nantucket is both a near and offshore boat, comparing the Outrage to the Nantucket is a valid exercise. Especially valid in that used Outrages are still available and in good shape, one would want to make informed decisions when deciding on an older hull vs newer and what are the advantages and disadvantages of both.

Personally I don't believe either boat would be outraged by the comparison, we are after all comparing one whaler to another. Now if you compared either boat to another builder there may be some issues.

--kamie

jimh posted 01-13-2004 09:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Hopelessly off-topic, but on the subject of reversed images of boats:

The major motion picture TITANIC was shot using only half of a ship as a set, so when shooting scenes on say the PORT side, the image was used in normal fashion, and when shooting scenes on STARBOARD side, the film image was flipped during editing. All elements in the reversed scenes that had writing on them were replaced with reversed-text elements. Even the crew uniforms were made in two versions. This was much cheaper than actually building a completely finished second half of the boat's decks, superstructure, etc.

Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 10:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Talked with the BW dealer! Seems like those 2500 lb 18 ORs are or have only been made in the later part of 1999 2000 and if I remember correctly 2001! I have found a couple of them for sale! But I am also hoping BW will redesign the Nantucket to accommadate more creature comforts and or a little more of an 18 OR design! See you at the Atlantic City Boat show! or Miami Boat show! Maybe there is something in the pipeline! HC
Tom2697 posted 01-13-2004 11:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
Kamie,
BW is still making the 18/19 Outrage. The CPD is making the hull and calling it the Guardian 19 but, the hull is still in production.
Tom
Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 12:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
MY dealer just said it would cost Beaucoux! Mucho! CPD would charge $40.000 PLUS ??? HC
kamie posted 01-13-2004 01:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Tom,

Your right the hull is still being made, but my guess is that to buy one new you would have to pay big $$$$. HC's dealer estimated 40k, and that would contain what, the hull,and some storage. Definatly not cushions and not live wells and rod holders and maybe not even an engine. They state clearly on the web that if you are looking for a whaler for personal use, go to the recreational site, not the commercial one. If you are in the business, by all means buy the commercial product, depreciate that asset, your accountant will love you for it. The recreational boater has 3 choices from BW in the 18/19 foot range, Dauntless, Ventura and the Nantucket, that's what is in the showroom and on the water at his/her local dealer.

kamie posted 01-13-2004 01:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
HC,

What would your creature comfort wish list for the Nantucket be?

Buckda posted 01-13-2004 01:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
The 40K figure would be fully rigged. Hull alone (with lights, console and leaning post) is about $22K, plus 1,400 bucks to change gelcoat to color other than grey.

Figure more like 50K - 55K to really trick it out.

Is that excessive? yeah, probably..but if you're interested, there is another thread on the forum where people are kicking around the idea of getting a group together and seeing if they can negotiate a group discount. Depending on what happens, it could be a more reasonable proposition.

Tom2697 posted 01-13-2004 01:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
I agree 100%. Most of us can't afford a CPD Whaler. I couldn't even afford a new recreational Whaler when I got mine. But, I was interested in a fishing machine with only occassional use as a comfort vessel. I do have cushions and other niceties for my boat that make friends more comfortable but I rarely put them in the boat. They get in the way too often and don't do well with fish blood. Come to think of it, some of my friends are the same way! :-)
lhg posted 01-13-2004 03:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I think you guys are way too high for a new 19 Guardian. That 22M list price includes a fully functional boat, add 6M for a Merc 115 2-stroke, $1500 for a trailer and you're in the water for what a 115HP Nantucket costs. The key in buying a Guardian is to stay away from the factory options and extras, which are high cost. Have yours done in the aftermarket sector (rails, coolers, other rigging, etc).
I do not know if the commercial boats can be discounted 10-15% or not.

I just happened to see a new 19 Guardian at a Dealership.
All it needed was a nice 1" recreational ss bow rail and a nice RPS. Of all the guardians, the 19 is most like the original recreational Outrage 18. The 22's and 25's have modified bow locker areas, but the 19 is the same as the 18 Outrage.

Buckda posted 01-13-2004 05:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
LHG - you're right...I'm listing a price I had worked out with twin 90's and all the options that I wanted, including full Mills canvas set.

If you were creative, I think you could get out in the high 30's/low 40's with 150HP (suprised that you would recommend 115HP Larry!) and creatively requisitioning the remaining hardware from other sources. This is provided that you had the knowledge and ability to install these aftermarket purchases.

So the question to most people becomes: Are you willing to pay 7-8K more, plus purchase certain components separately and install them yourself to have the Outrage versus the Nantucket (fully assembled)?

restated:

Is the 19 Guardian worth $7-$8K more than the 19 Nantucket?

Which really brings us back to the original question -which is better?

Dave

Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 07:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
A 19 foot Gaurdian! Is it the same as an early 18 Outrage Smirk haul or a newer Accutrack haul? One can always buy a used 1999 or 2000 18 OR! Where can I see the specs and or Picture on the 19 Gaurdian? Conviences such a fiberglas under deck fuel tank, flush to the floor mount fish boxes, a convient bow anchor locker, some combing at the rail, a spot to mount a radar set up at the console, and a super cushioned Leaning Post would be just some of the creature comforts I would need on my newly redesigned Nantucket Sleigh Ride! The trips back from Buzzards Bay and from Block Island to Montauk proved to be a bit much in my 170 Montauk in October. Where is Bob Doughtery when you need him! HC
bricknj posted 01-13-2004 07:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for bricknj    
http://www.whaler.com/cgp/whaler_cgp.asp?id=product

Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 07:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Checked out the Guardian web Page! Can not access any other photos of the Guardian other than the one on the main page! Looks to be a 22-25 foot CC Model! Any other URL connections! Thanks HC
bricknj posted 01-13-2004 07:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for bricknj    
From the main guardian page you should be able to position your mouse under the word "Guardian", and that action will unhide the different choice hulls for you to click on (ie 16 feet through 27 feet).

Hope that helps

Buckda posted 01-13-2004 08:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
HC -

The 19' Guardian is the same as the old, 18 Outrage. The CGPD uses an amalgamation of Whaler hullforms - the 18' Guardian is the newer, "Accutrack" hull while the 19' Guardian has the original outrage design.


See http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/006442.html for additional information and a spirited discussion, and illustration for the desireability of this hull.


Again - if people think we can get the company to play ball in a reasonable ballpark, then I offer to participate in the development of proposal materials and to contact the good people at Boston Whaler.

Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 08:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
When does the Bus leave for Edgewater to discuss new plans with BW! Count me in! It will make a great wintertime trip to have the chance to design our very own Guardian/Outrage Nantucket Sleigh! Yee haa! Well we can go talk with Bob Daughtery too! HC
Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 08:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Still need to find the specs and actual 19 Guardian info! Tried your URL and it does not down load the Guardian line! HC
whalersman posted 01-13-2004 09:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalersman  Send Email to whalersman     
Holy,

You might try a different Web Browser...
Maybe Netscape, Internet Explorer, etc..

Apple's Safari does "Not" allow the pull down menu so this may be happening to you on whatever browser you are using..

Moe posted 01-13-2004 09:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
http://www.whaler.com/cgp/guardian19.asp
Buckda posted 01-13-2004 09:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
HC -

Specs for the 18 Outrage can be found on the reference section of this Web site. The Guardian Specs are similar:
LOA: 18' 6 (5.53 m)
Beam: 7' 2 (2.18 m)
Draft: 10 (.25 m )
Weight: 1750 lbs (794 kg)
Maximum Weight: 1755 lbs (796 kg)
Swamped Capacity: 3000 lbs (1360 kg)
Person Capacity: 7
Maximum Horsepower: 150 hp (111 kw)
Minimum Horsepower: 75 hp (55 kw)
Maximum Engine Weight: 470 lbs (213 kg)
Shaft: 25"s/20"d (.63 m/.50 m)
Fuel Capacity: 57 gal (215 L)

The base boat comes with the following:
Unsinkable hull with commercial grade fiberglass laminate
Self bailing hull with scuppers
Haze grey gelcoat
Heavy duty rubrail
Black identification and trim markings
Fiberglass console with storage area, dome light, windshield and grabrail
Fiberglass bench seat
Padded stainless steel steering wheel
No feedback cable steering
Bow storage locker with fiberglass cover
Boweye / lifting eye
Stern eyes
(5) 10" cleats
Navigation lights
10 year transferable limited hull warranty
Fire extinguisher
Bilge pump with automatic float switch
Switch panel - bilge / navigation lights / (4) auxiliary
57 gallon baffled aluminum fuel tank

Everything else is by customer spec and priced accordingly.

Holy Cow posted 01-13-2004 10:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Where are the 19 foot ORs' on this site! I looked at the photos page and found nothing??? HC
Buckda posted 01-13-2004 10:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
It is a matter of semantics HC -

The new Outrages start at the 210 (21 feet) stage.

The Guardian 19 is the "old" 18 Outrage.

For the 19 Outrage II - see the boat "Memory" in the rendezvous section (the NC 2000 Narrative has many nice photos and a description of the two similar hulls).

See the bottom of this page for a description of the 19 foot Outrage II: http://www.continuouswave.com/whaler/rendezvous/NC2000/dayOne.html

See the bottom of this page for a description what I refer to as nearly a perfectly rigged 1986 18 foot Outrage "T/T Whale Lure": http://www.continuouswave.com/whaler/rendezvous/NC2000/dayTwo.html

Moe posted 01-14-2004 10:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
HC, to get all the things you want in a new boat, and have any significantly better performance than the 170 where you boat, you need to be looking at the CPD 19' Justice or the recreational 210 Outrage, and I suspect the latter will cost less equipped. That's what Edgewater's gonna tell you.

--
Moe

erik selis posted 01-14-2004 11:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Why is there such a (big) difference in weight between the 19-foot Guardian and the 18-foot Outrage? (500lbs?) At first sight they both look the same.
Wouldn't some of the advantages of the lighter hull of the classic 18-foot Outrage be lost on the Guardian? (this advantage has been pointed out here quite often lately)
Has anyone ever physically weighed their 18-Classic Outrage?
Thanks,
Erik
Tom2697 posted 01-14-2004 04:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
Erik,
From what I understand, the Guardian uses heavier components and has more glass on the hull. I needed a new bow eye for my boat and contacted Whaler. They do not have any for the Outrage but said I could use one from the Guardian 19. The problem is the Outrage uses a 1/2" rod and the Guardian uses a 5/8" rod. This is just an example but after figuring for all the upgrades in components, it should be easy to see where the extra 500 lbs comes from. Also, replace all the wood for aluminum.
Holy Cow posted 01-14-2004 05:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
In consideration in redesigning a new 19 Outrage/Guardian/Nantucket haul, What would be some of the features that would be the best of all three of these models?
It would be nice to build the ulitmate rig. I believe that is what the 2000 18 Outrage tried to do.
I am going to jump into my Time Machine. Taveling to 2010 just to see if the 190 Nantucket is going to become even better of a Nantucket Sleigh Ride. I now leave it to the Jules Verne types. HC
Holy Cow posted 01-17-2004 07:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Is it the 2000 18 OR has a varible deadrise hull and heavier than the 190 Nantucket that makes the craft that little bit more seaworthy? Also is the older smirk 18 OR just as fine a craft as the 2000 18 OR? And does the later model 18 OR have a variable deadrise? Good stuff! Dread to leave this thread! Simply because for a admirer of BW designs I am tempted to either look for a old 18 OR or a 19 Outrage from CPD! Unless the Nantucket upgrades, which is what I am sure any quality manufacturer of crafts would do! Again great thread! HC
Holy Cow posted 01-18-2004 01:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
Is it fair to say that the 1999/2000 new style Outrage haul is a better ride than the earlier models? I am looking at the total picture as in consideration to the extra weight. Still hope the Nantucket will have a special edition in the future to complement the 190 existing model! I need to see it have a few more features to make it a truer comparison to the 190 Nantucket. Again Great thread! HC
Buckda posted 01-18-2004 01:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
HC -

First, I don't believe you will ever find the "perfect" boat in this size range, however there are various manufacturers who will be willing to build you customized boats (Brunswick CGPD is one such company); however you will likely pay for that option, eh?

Regarding the question if the 2000 18' Outrage rides "better" than the 90's Outrage II or the 80's Outrage: It is really a matter of degree, and what factors make a boat ride "better" in your opinion. I believe JimH comments on the similarities in ride and pros and cons of the two boats in the links I provided above.

I suspect that the newest, "post classic" Outrage probably takes seas better on the nose, but also results in more spray, etc.

I believe it would be expecially difficult to top the older hull's ability to "track" in a following sea, making your return trip to port from the open lake or ocean more confident and comfortable when it gets nasty.

There have been numerous discussions on the differences in the newer / older hulls in previous threads - do a search and explore the myriad opinions here on the topic.

There are also several very good threads that delve into the justification for the Nantucket hull and its abilities and shortcomings (this thread included).

I am in your same situation in terms of torn between a classic 18 Outrage, or purchasing a new 19 Guardian, however that is a discussion for the classic forum, rather than here in the post-classic forum.

The discussion on this topic is continuing and ongoing in ealeap's thread "Communicating with companies...especially BW" in the general forum, and I invite you to share your thoughts on that decision there.

Dave

prm1177 posted 01-18-2004 02:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
My only observation is an empirical one. When looking over a Nantucket 190 at my local dealer, I observed that it seems to have the same or even slightly less interior room than my Outrage II 17.
Moe posted 01-18-2004 04:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here are some comparisons scaled to each other. 190 vs 17 Justice (17 Outrage II) vs 170, with the top row lined up at the rear of the bow locker where the main deck begins.

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/190vs17JCvs170.jpg

While it has the two jump seats, I'd say the 17 Justice is closer to the same interior room as the 170, and the 190 has quite a bit more than both. It may not look that way due to the larger console and seat base with livewell.
--
Moe

erik selis posted 01-19-2004 04:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Moe, I always like the scaled comparison links you post. A drawing always says more than many words. Thanks.
Indeed the inside space between the 17 Justice and the 170 seems to be almost identical. It looks to me like the 190 has much less room in the back of the boat than the other two. Also less that the Classic 18 Outrage.(see Moe's previous comparison between the 17' Montauk, 170 Montauk, the 19 Guardian and the 190)I'm surprised at the difference.
Erik
lhg posted 01-19-2004 01:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
When I took a 17 Outrage II out for a trail run on Lake Erie, I remember thinking this boat didn't hold a candle to the Classic 18 Outrage, mainly because it had nothing up front, with it's pointy, minimal bow profile which felt like it would go through big seas rather than over them. Moe's duplication of Whaler's plan drawings clearly show this, especially when compared to the new Montauk 170. Give me the square nosed 170 any day over the older 17 Outrage/Justice.
prxmid posted 01-19-2004 03:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for prxmid  Send Email to prxmid     
Moe knows boats.
Moe posted 01-19-2004 03:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Erik, you have to compare apples to apples, and what takes up a lot of space in the stern of the 190 is the big baitwell that the other boats don't have.

Yes, absolutely, the 19 Guardian/18 Outrage and the 190 Nantucket are capable of heavier seas than the 170 Montauk. But not THAT much heavier. Having an 18-19 boat in a situation that a 25 or larger is called for is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

What we are really dealing with here is how many days a year (for you southerners) or season (for us snow-bound), you can use a boat in certain waters safely and comfortably. If we know the means and standard deviations of significant wave heights for an area (which are published by the National Bouy Data Center), we can generally predict what percentage of the total number of days in a certain month of the year, they will not exceed the capability of our boat (or its comfort level), and hence get an idea of what percentage of days it will be usable. A larger boat that can handle larger wave heights, and/or be more comfortable in them, will be usable more days.

We must also factor in the distance, and thus time, to safe waters/harbor, if we chose to boat in a time period where the weather is predicted to be suitable for our boat, with following weather that would exceed its capability. Weather can move in sooner than predicted, and "beat us to shore" if the distance is far. Worse yet, we could have a failure and unintentionally extend our time on the water into a following period of worse weather.

This is all just mumbo-jumbo for the old saying, "you have to pick your days." It's not that a smaller boat can't fish the same areas, it's just that a larger boat lets you fish them more often. Look at how tiny the drawing of the classic Montauk appears against the other boats, yet it has a long history of fishing significant distances out.

None of these boats we're debating here are "offshore" boats, but there are certainly many days when they can safely and comfortably be taken there. One more time, a larger boat means a few more days. And there are days that none of them can be safely and comfortably be taken there.

For the huge price difference between a 170, and a 190 or 19 Guardian, you can buy quite a few charters on a MUCH larger boat, not only to make up for those days you wouldn't be safe in that area in a 170 but would in the slightly larger Whalers, but to go out when even THEY wouldn't be safe. If you want to do those few more days in your own larger Whaler, then get the larger boat.

That's what it really boils down to.

--
Moe

TG_190 posted 01-19-2004 03:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Moe and company,


No comparison should be made between a 170 and a 190. I have been on the 170, and I would deem it a good bay boat with the ocean use on the calmest days. I know people do amazing things with them, but you can drive a car with your feet, that don't make it a good idea.

One factor alone is worth the price of the Nantucket in the ocean: Self Bailing.

Despite its unsinkabiliy, I would not want to wait for a bilge to empty out the water in a swamped 170, especially if by chance you get caught in rough conditions.

As far as the Nantucket being sound for the ocean: Yes, it is. It is a deep V entry, with a modified 16 degree deadrise at the transom, and the bow is big and high off the water. It handles rough stuff well. Now, I wouldn't try a dramatic reenactment of "The Perfect Storm", but in pretty snotty conditions it has done very well for me.

If your talking about calm water, then I would agree that maybe the 190 is overkill, but what price do you put on the extra comfort and safety that the Nantucket has over the 170?

As far as space is concerned: I pose the following point that square footage on a boat, just like a house, is not the most important thing. It is more a matter of useable space, and ergonomics. I find that the Nantucket has enough useable space for 3 to 4 people to fish in the back of the boat. I wouldn't fish with more than this anyway. BTW, the livewell mounted under the leaning post is excellent from several different perspectives: it is in the middle which is an advantage for load balancing and ease of access, and when not used for live bait makes a good cooler/storage in a very accessible place.

Just my $.02. Talk amongst yourselves...

Over and Out,

TG_190

Moe posted 01-20-2004 03:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Once upon a time, a member here said of his 160 Dauntless versus the 150 Sport, "The 150 is designed for use in a lake or bay where the Dauntless can handle the open ocean quite well." I replied "Now I don't doubt the deeper Dauntless hull is better in rough water..., but the picture clearly shows we're not really talking bay boat vs ocean-going vessel here." and illustrated it with this:

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/160vs150.jpg

Now we have another Whaler owner saying of his 190 vs the next size down 170, "I have been on the 170, and I would deem it a good bay boat with the ocean use on the calmest days...As far as the Nantucket being sound for the ocean: Yes, it is."

I find the "my boat's an ocean-going vessel and the next size down is a bay boat" amusing. As I said above, "Yes, absolutely, the 19 Guardian/18 Outrage and the 190 Nantucket are capable of heavier seas than the 170 Montauk. But not THAT much heavier. Having an 18-19 boat in a situation that a 25 or larger is called for is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.[/i]" I thought I'd put things in perspective and illustrate a little better what I was speaking of.

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/BayBoatVSoceanGoingVessel.jpg

Note that they're lined up where the main deck begins at the stern, which actually makes the smaller, non-Euro-transom models appear a bit longer in comparison.

Where would you draw the line between nearshore and offshore boat? For me it would be slightly above the 240, putting it pretty close to either. Certainly not between the 170 and 190, where the differences between the two are much smaller.

Just my perspective on the issue. :-)

--
Moe

DaveH posted 01-20-2004 05:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for DaveH  Send Email to DaveH     
That's an interesting comparison, but in my view, the only limitations of any of these Whalers are the fuel usage and the captain's ability.
TG_190 posted 01-20-2004 06:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Moe,

I mean you or Montauk owners no disrespect. They are all first and foremost whalers.

Offshore is a relative term. It depends on where you are I guess. When we talk about fishing offshore of NJ, the Hudson Canyon which is about 90 nautical miles East of the Manasquan inlet is typical. Offshore is loosely defined in the dictionary as "some distance away from shore." Amongst fisherman, I would say offshore refers to the distance one must go away from shore to encounter offshore pelagic species where they typically reside/migrate.

I draw the line for an ocean going vessel based on its ability to handle the typical ocean conditions in the area safely and easily. I also consider self-bailing a requirement, but I am sure you beg to differ.

In general, I don't consider any boat without twins and under ABOUT 20 feet with less than ABOUT an 8 foot beam to be an offshore boat- just my opinion. I am also sure that there are unsafe, or ill-equipped boats that might meet those criteria, eliminating them from the offshore club as well. It also has to do with how it is equipped - in NJ GPS, VHF, RADAR, and EPIRB (charters require liferafts too), In Fl you probably don't need radar as much. The experience of the captain and crew is probably the most vital requirement.

That said, I have taken my well equipped Nantucket (sans radar) out past the reef in the keys, out to the gulf stream out of Ft. Pierce, and on one of those days out of 14 (fishing off of FL this winter) that I made it out that far the Montauk would have been fine as well (1 out of 14). In addition I have had the Nantucket out 20 miles off of NJ 5 times during summer/fall 2003. Still doesn't make either the 170 or the 190 offshore boats by my own criteria.

That said, I do take the Nantucket out on the average day during the boating season in NJ within 10miles of the inlet. I usually pass several montalks fishing in the river/inlet on the way out. I don't see the Montauk as a comfortable or safe ocean boat for the typical conditions I encounter, but like I said, you can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good idea....

So in conlusion, I would call the Nantucket an inshore boat, and the Montauk a bay/nearshore boat (ideal for LI Sound or Barnaget Bay) in NJ. Self bailing, hull shape, fuel capacity, and the freeboard are the physical differentiators for me. Those are just my opinions, but your opinions probably do vary. Length in and of itself is not a good measure for this discussion. The sum total of the parts, must yield something that can safely and easily handle the usual conditions with margins for the unusual.

Heading into port in a 20knot wind against the tide condition entering the Manasquan inlet NJ, or traversing the Point Pleasant canal during the fastest part of the tide on a pleasant saturday summer afternoon are good tests for the title "Seaworthy" in the unsheltered Atlantic off of NJ.

I know that you have a very well equipped 150. I commend your organization and preparedness. Off topic, but where have you boated with that rig?


As long as we're both happy, and we back up our boating decisions by safely returning every time by "picking our days", we can agree to disagree and just enjoy the time and the boats we are lucky enough to have.

TG_190

Tom2697 posted 01-20-2004 11:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
TG_190,
My brother and I used to run the Manasquan Inlet and the Point Pleasant Canal in a 13' Whaler when we were young (he was 12, I was 10) under the conditions that you mentioned. We thought our boat was more than "seaworthy" enough to handle those conditions. Now, 20 years later, I think back and realize I should not still be walking on this earth. More recently, I have taken my 18' Outrage out in conditions where the Coast Guard is stopping all boats from leaving the inlet due to an approaching hurricane. We still went out and boated 3 tuna, a limit of red snapper, and an amberjack.

My point is not to stress how brave or foolish I am or that "my boat is better than yours." My point is that some people trust themselves and their equipment enough to do what others consider insane. Some here will not go offshore in anything less than a 25 footer with twins. Others will go "offshore" in a 14' aluminum skiff. To this I say "to each his own" and I hope I never have to read about any of them in the newspaper.

Regards,
Tom

Moe posted 01-20-2004 11:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
TG, I respect your opinion, as well as appreciate your conservative nature. The "guarantee from God" before going out 60 miles was a good way to express that. :-)

And you have to know that from previous posts, I'm a big fan of the 190. I just don't seen the same differences that you do, given that the 170 will be operating in lower states of seas, on fewer days, where the lighter weight, smaller size, including lower freeboard, are as adequate as the 190's in higher seas. With a conservative approach to the weather, I feel there's little difference in where you can go in a 170 versus a 190, just when you can go there, given I personally wouldn't take the 190 out any further than the 170's fuel range (24-27 gallons) would support anyway.

We're both pretty conservative, you more in some ways, me more in others. We've agreed that neither is an offshore boat. We agree about the GPS, VHF, and EPIRB on an offshore boat, and agree that the need for radar is situational. I agree about the self-bailing hull on an offshore boat, where the distance and time involved compound human and weather model error. With a well maintained, modern technology engine, I'd debate, but understand, some people's need for twins. A number of offshore, full-displacement trawlers don't use them. I'd add a sea anchor, and if water temperature dictates, survival suits, and even a life raft with a large Whaler. We disagree on the size. I'm not sure I'd use the term marginal, but even the longest of the non-permit trailerable (i.e. under 8'6" beam) boats are on the small end of what I'd personally call an offshore boat. Size matters. Just my opinion.

As a deckhand on a 60' boat when I was younger, I've seen weather 20-25 miles out in the Gulf where the heavier weight, slightly higher freeboard, and self-bailing scuppers of the 190 probably wouldn't have saved you. But you wouldn't have been out there in that weather in the first place, right? The distance and time involved is a fraction of that offshore, and the risk of being caught in weather beyond the capability of the boat is much lower, particularly for those with a more conservative response to weather forecasts. Tow and rescue times are lower. Fuel usage is also lower and 24-27 gallons with a single four-stroke is reasonable. Given this, I don't see the need for twin engines or a self-bailing hull for those who "pick their days." By that I specifically include not going out when the weather is predicted to worsen beyond the capability of the boat, even after the time you expect to be in.

I grew up on the Gulf and spent my share of time diving and fishing in it out of relatively small boats, but have been away for too many years. I have absolutely no familiarity with the Atlantic, but get frequent fishing reports and pictures from a 150 Sport owner who transits Barnaget Bay and Manasquan Inlet to fish near shore in the ocean. He may not go out as frequently as you do, but in my opinion, he gets out there frequently, and he doesn't even go out in seas as high as we do. I can see that from the pictures. From this, it seems the 170 would be more than ideal even further out, on many days.

So far we've only had our 150 out around the islands on Lake Erie. Our typical day was 2-4' chop, but we've seen a couple at 3-5' and a couple at 1-2 or 3' (my eyeballs are right at 4' off the waterline). 3-5' chop certainly isn't fun or comfortable (for an old fart) in a 150, but we never felt unsafe. We haven't taken on enough water to even be close to worrying about pulling the drain plug of the self-bailing 150. We wear rainsuits, PFDs, and kill laynard in those seas, but there just isn't much point in going out into them unless fishing is particularly awesome around Kelley's Island, which is 4-5 miles out. We go no further than that in 3-5'. The slightly larger and higher freeboard, much heavier, center console 170 should even be comfortable under those conditions.

Our winds are similar to yours, plus and minus. We've been out in 2-4' north of North Bass Island, as far as 15 miles out from CG station Marblehead, and gotten a good radio check from them there. When we get our Canadian radio operator licenses, I'll feel fine about 23 miles out to East Sister, or making the loop around Pelee, but will probably reserve that for 1-3' due to fuel use. Similar to one who would go 60 miles out with a single with the refuge of oil rigs and shrimpers, we're never more than 3 to 5 miles from the shore of an island, and usually that close to larger boats, even on less crowded weekdays. We don't go out when the following weather will be 4-6' or higher. Fish or no fish.

In conclusion, TG, I think we agree on more than we disagree on. If the added expense of the additional capabilities of the 190 gives you peace of mind, I'm happy for you. Heck, we already spend nearly twice the price of similarly sized other brands for the security that comes with a Whaler. I just personally think you underrate the 170.

--
Moe

Holy Cow posted 01-21-2004 01:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Holy Cow  Send Email to Holy Cow     
The perfect world would be a 320 Outrage and a 170 or 190 to tool around in. Right now for me its the legendary 40 plus years Ole Reliable Montauk Sleigh Ride. It does everything I need it to do! Like going from Montauk Point to Block Island and Falmouth to Martha's to Nantucket.

I have already made these trips in 2003 in 1-2 and 2-4 foot seas. I am glad I saved the extra $10,000 to $20,000 that I might have put down on the 190!

The Bet. Kim's Revenge will be scooting around chasing dem stripped bass! Can't wait to see you all somewhere between Great Point and Wasque shoals! Thanks! HC

tombro posted 01-21-2004 09:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
As Moe has mentioned me as the 150 Sport owner hailing from NJ in his last post, here goes.
I have had boats by other makers that I fitted into various slots, as far as seaworthiness, range, safety, etc. My 18 foot Wellcraft CC only felt good out to about 6 miles offshore, and I caught schoolie bluefins and grasshopper dolphin from it on the very best of days. My Mako 224 took me to the 30 mile ranges, catching shark and larger tunas. My Mako 258 cuddy with twin 175 Mercs took me to the Hudson Canyon catching bigeye and allison tuna. I have weathered some extremely violent (July 1987, 'nuff said) storms on my boats. Now I have a 150 Sport Whaler.

I consider self-bailing a must, and if it were my boat, the 190 would likely see use out to the 20 mile mark. My rig, and probably the 170, if I owned one, would feel safe and comfortable nearer shore to me. I mostly run the beach, around the Hook, Manasquan Inlet, etc, closely picking my days. I watch for winds, wind vs tides, moon phases, etc. It's like a shuttle launch sometimes in this sized boat. This is where the 25 footer I used to own made a difference--I could mindlessly run through slop that anything under 20' would soak and hammer you in.
The 150 suits me fine for my purposes, and I guess the experience I had with my other boats adds to the utility of the present one. Have been through the PP canal on a busy Sunday, with wife, daughter, and Labrador, and felt very safe and dry. So...you pick your days, very carefully, and venture out. It's a big ocean out there!


TG_190 posted 01-21-2004 10:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Moe,

Thanks for your explanation. I enjoyed reading it. I guess I might be "preaching" a little bit, but I feel almost obligated to keep uninformed/unexperienced people contemplating the 170 vs. 190 on the conservative side of things, and not make it sound likely that a 170 is the boat to choose for fishing in the ocean. I think we can both agree that in equal sea conditions, your safety margins are much greater in the 190 than the 170. I've been scared a couple of times in the past (other boats), and I've read enough stories to know that you never take anything for granted when boating. Nuff said, and lets all keep it safe.

Regards,

TG_190

Tom2697,

Interesting. Where did you catch the tuna, amberjack, and red snappers during a hurricane watch? I've also headed out in questionable conditions, and lived to tell about it. Makes you feel good when you conquer the elements and are safe and sound after returning.

I personally have seen the PP canal with 5 foot steep, standing waves coming from all directions from the wakes and reflections with a 10knot current. Its a lot better now since they fixed the bridge, but it is still hairy for small boats. I also once got caught coming back into the MSQN inlet in the afternoon, after the wind had kicked up from the east during a strong outgoing tide to be faced with 12 footers. Yeah, I made it through by modulating the throttles and keeping one eye on the transom and one eye on the bow, but tipping over there would have sucked to say the least. When I left in the morning, it was fine, and I had no indication it was gonna be that bad there until I was there.

Regards,

TG_190


Tombro,

I think we are on the same page. Thanks, your insight add credibility to my opinions. How did you do last summer with that bumper crop of stripers we had? We should hook up some time (my email is real). I caught a schooley bluefin in the mudhole off of the 190 this past november (about 50pounder on a TLD20). That was the highlight of my 2003 season. The sushi was excellent.

Tight lines and keep in touch,

TG_190

Tom2697 posted 01-21-2004 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom2697  Send Email to Tom2697     
TG_190,
I'm fishing out of South Texas now. If you come down here I'll take you to the spot but NO WAY will I give the numbers out! :-)
We did the run when Huricane Erika was stalled in the Gulf. We headed out a few days before when the bite was ON! The Coasties were stopping everybody but they know me and my Whaler so they let us pass. We have a lot of yahoos down here that try to take flats skiffs (you know the kind that don't even have gunnels?) into the Gulf. Anyway, I joked with them that night about it because the waves offshore, while reading 5-8 on the bouy reports, had a period of at least 10-12 seconds which ain't too bad. Well, we hit a wreck that wasn't too far away. Trolled for the tuna (blackfin) and chunked for the snapper and AJ. Even got a king that we threw back. We couldn't hook up with the cobia though.

The PP Canal did get pretty tossed up when I lived in NJ. We were running full bore (13' w/25hp) through it the one day and were only moving about 5 mph! We also saw 4 boats hit the bridge that day. Normally, we would've turned around but we were on our way back home and we were not supposed to be on that side of the canal. My parents never found out until I was much older.

Tom

TG_190 posted 01-21-2004 11:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
tom2697,

I might take you up on that TX fishing trip someday. I really might wind up visiting, as my employer's NoAmerican operation is mainly based out of Richardson.

If my parents only knew half of the crap I pulled when I was a kid. Did you get punished when they found out? Despite my advanced age I still get lectures from my mom.


Tight lines,
TG_190

jimh posted 01-24-2004 02:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thanks for the interesting discussion.

As the topic has drifted to fishing, I have closed the thread.

papageorge posted 04-02-2004 08:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for papageorge  Send Email to papageorge     
Wow!!!!
Great stuff. I really learned alot reading this and thanks to all of you for talking this up. Its fun reading these various questions and reponses. Your enthusiasm is contagious. I am still somewhat undecided between the 180 Dauntless and the 19 Nantucket. Either of them should serve me well in the Chesapeake. The stats are similar, but the storage in the 180 will probably sway me. I plan to equip it with a Garmin model 320c fishfinder / depthsounder mounted on the top of the console. Also, for back up, I plan to ask the dealer to install a flush mounted Lowrance digital depth sounder for extra protection. In the upper Chesapeake, you can run into shallow water pretty quick. Thats one of the reasons there is always a nice little chop out there.
Question, Moe agreed with another responder that the back jump seats in the 19 Nantucket were pretty much not usable for a variety of reasons. (weight distribution, noise etc) I don't think the same thing is true with the fold down stern seat in the 180. Is that right??
Additionally, after reading this tremendous info, I am developing an affection for the older 18 Outrage (pre 1991)without ever having seen one.

papageorge

Sal A posted 04-02-2004 09:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
Man. I loved this thread. Hall of famer.

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.