Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
|Author||Topic: 16' Dauntless|
posted 01-09-2004 10:11 AM ET (US)
If anybody out there is thinking about taking there 16' Dauntless offshore, i took mine over the columbia river bar into the pacific ocean salmon fishing about 7 times before i bought the 21 conquest. I was a little apprehensive at first but felt pretty comfortable after a little practice. I wouldnt recommend it for everyone mainly because of the size but i was very impressed with the way it handled the water. As most of you know it can get a little rough out there. I mainly upgraded for the space and the comfort for my passengers. But i already miss it for the smaller bodys of water. I tried to keep it as long as possible but my better half thought it was a little too much.
posted 01-09-2004 12:05 PM ET (US)
I take my 160 10 to 15 miles out into the ocean often. I don't go if it is too rough but 10-20 mph winds and 4-6 foot seas are no problem. I will probably sell the boat next year and upgrade but until then, it gets me out to where the fish are.
posted 01-09-2004 03:14 PM ET (US)
I have taken my 2002 Dauntless 160 offshore Texas 7 times about 8 to 10 miles and felt pretty comfortable in 1 to 2 foot seas. It does great for a boat that size but I wouldn't want to get caught in a storm in it. You guys talking about 6 foot seas must be running in Pacific swells with long periods, since a quick run out the jetties that I took in 3 to 4 foot Gulf of Mexico waves was more than I feel comfortable in.
The bouyancy, self bailing, and 45 gallon tank make it a great nearshore kingfish and shark catching boat for me. On the other hand, I sure envied the guy in a Dauntless 220 that I followed offshore one day.
posted 01-09-2004 07:32 PM ET (US)
I've had my 2002 Dauntless 160 up to 27 miles out of Marathon, Fl. and to Pelican Flats about 20 miles out of Port Canaveral, Fl. I've been very impressed with it but when the weather changes start heading in. I slopped through 22 miles of 3-5's coming back to Marathon in June and although was drenched never felt unsafe. I was 15 miles off the coast of Kennedy Space Center feb 1st the day the Columbia crashed and was wet and very cold but let my friend drive back in to show him how well it handled. I wouldn't leave in rough stuff but feel it adequate to get me home when it gets nasty. I plan on more offshore trips this summer- see the photo link in my profile- I have a pair of 15' Lee outriggers mounted and just installed a new Ray53 radio and upgrading antenna this week. Maybe I'll go bigger in a few years but for the few times a year I venture offshore I'm fine or can hitch a ride on some friend's bigger boats (all non whalers though-yuk!)
posted 01-09-2004 08:23 PM ET (US)
I bought a 160 Dauntless that I have had on the steep/close seas on Lake Ontario. There's a point where it's no fun, but I would trust that little boat to get home in almost anything.
I also have a 23 SeaCraft for the serious offshore work, but it's a "big" boat to trailer/launch single handed and more than what's needed much of the time. It's the best for the kids to fish, cruise, ski, board, tube and sips gas.
I'll never sell that boat.
posted 01-10-2004 10:42 AM ET (US)
On my 16' dauntless i had a guy build me a tee top for it because whaler did not offer it. It worked very well to keep out the sun and some rain. We used the same holes for the center console,didnt wanto to drill any.
posted 01-10-2004 11:59 AM ET (US)
Thurmanator, what do you mean when you say you use the same holes for the console? Do you have any pics of the boat and t-top?
Here is a link to pics of my 160 and t-top you might have to cut and paste it.
posted 01-10-2004 03:35 PM ET (US)
Perry, Ihave to look and see if i have any pictures.If i remember the top was designed to clamp on the origanal frame around the window and also bolt through the bolt holes at the bottom of the console.
posted 01-11-2004 11:19 PM ET (US)
We take ou 2001 160 Dauntless 10-12 offshore in Maine. I wouldn't go out that far if the weather was rough or had the possibility of getting bad. Otherwise it feels very stable in mild-moderate seas. Very nice boat!
posted 01-11-2004 11:20 PM ET (US)
10-12 miles, sorry its late!
posted 01-12-2004 05:43 AM ET (US)
I think the t-top looks great on your Dauntless. It would probably fit on the 170 Montauk as well. Do you feel any kiting effect because of the t-top?
posted 01-12-2004 12:46 PM ET (US)
Erik, I think the 170 and 160 use the same console so it probably would fit a 170 too. Since the top isn't too big and the hull and motor are around 2000 lbs, I notice very little kiting effect.
posted 01-29-2004 12:42 AM ET (US)
Great pictures. I like your T-top. How is it working for you?
posted 01-29-2004 07:52 PM ET (US)
Alanfujii... The pictures of the t- top are perry's not mine. I did build one for mine but sold the boat. i will try to post some pictures if i can find them.
posted 01-29-2004 10:04 PM ET (US)
I came across this at the C E Smith website while looking at their rod holders. Maybe it'll help someone looking for one.
posted 01-29-2004 11:54 PM ET (US)
Can anyone see any downsides to a T-top on a Dauntless 160? I don't have mine yet and it's hard to imagine what it would be like in comparison to the bimini.
posted 01-30-2004 09:34 AM ET (US)
This is just my humble opinion, but biminis are for boats like mine with thwart seats, or dual-console boats like the Ventura. If you look at pictures of mine, you see the bimini frame, with fore and aft straps and struts, takes up the majority of the sides of the boat.
Unless the bimini is folded all the way down, it's going to take away some of what makes a center console so great for fishing. That even includes a bimini in the fold-forward configuration rather than the fold-aft like mine. Of course, if you don't fish out of your center console, this isn't an issue.
The weight of a T-top is a bit greater than that of a bimini and frame, and so it lessens the side to side stability of the boat a little, and it might roll a little more. It also doesn't have quite as much coverage as a bimini, but should have enough in most cases.
The T-top eliminates the compromise of using a short VHF antenna, mounted down low to stay under the bimini, where the metal windshield frame can interfere with its radiation. A lighter-duty T-Top will let you put a 4' 4.5db Digital antenna up high, and a heavier-duty one will even support an 8'. It also lets you get an external GPS antenna up high, where things and people can't get between it and the lower angle geostationary differential satellites.
IMHO, T-tops are the best solution for center consoles.
posted 01-30-2004 11:14 AM ET (US)
Moe, that makes a lot of sense.
What about the increase susceptibility to wind? I read on some of the archives of people not recommending T-tops on anything less than 21' because of the weight of the boat vs. the sail effect of the T-top.
posted 01-30-2004 02:38 PM ET (US)
I'm sure there is some effect, but not sure how significant it is. We always have the bimini up with the wife on board. In fact, the only weekend it's ever been folded was the one when I took my son out. In both cases, winds were about 20 knots at times and we've been going about that fast into them at times. I don't notice a difference.
Our 150 is a lot lighter than your 160, our bimini is larger than your T-top will be, plus our bimini has an almost ideal aircraft wing shape, where the T-top is flat. See:
I don't think it's that big of an issue.
posted 01-30-2004 03:05 PM ET (US)
Alen, Moe seemed to have explained the benifits of a T-top well.
The photos you saw are of my Dauntless 160
I troll in the ocean and like the fact that there are no poles or straps in the way from the bimini. It is aluminium and weighs around 100 lbs. Top speed was reduced by 2 mph do to the drag but because the 160 weighs around 2000 lbs with motor and fuel, it doesn't really blow around when anchored.
The only downside is that I had to tear down my old garage and build a taller one to fit the boat in :-)
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.