Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Stability Rating of Boston Whaler Conquest Models

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

Author Topic:   Stability Rating of Boston Whaler Conquest Models
swamprat26 posted 02-13-2007 11:39 PM ET (US)   Profile for swamprat26   Send Email to swamprat26  
How stable in rough seas would you rate the 205 or 235 Conquest? How far offshore would you trust the 205 or 235 Conquest? I know on great calm days I could go out in my 17 Outrage, but can these boats comfortably take rough water? How rough?
BarryGreen posted 02-14-2007 09:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for BarryGreen  Send Email to BarryGreen     
Swamprat - I have a 235 Conquest with the 250 Verado, and I am very satisfied with its seakeeping ability. However, these comparisons are always iffy because we all use our boats differently and in different conditions. My 235 is on a very large lake in NH, but when the wind pipes up and generates 3-4' seas that are very close together, I am OK while even 30-34' boats head for the docks. I have owned both 17' and 20' Outrages and run them in the same conditions, and the 235 is significantly more comfortable. I will say that, like all boats, the 235 with the hardtop will definitely lean well into the wind, but the Lenco tabs will correct for that if it bothers you.

I haven't run a 205 Conquest, but just walking through both the 205 and 235, I feel the 235 is much more boat and likely to handle better when the going gets rough.

Barry

David Pendleton posted 02-14-2007 04:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
I've been in 6-8 footers on L. Superior in my 1999 230 Conquest, this was within sight of land.

This was enough to split a weld on my hardtop... Other than that, the boat was fine.

I think I'd draw the line at 10 footers -- anywhere.

David Pendleton posted 02-14-2007 04:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
I should also add that I wasn't just puttering along.

I was running hard to get back to the marina before dark and to minimize the time we had to endure such conditions...

Bella con23 posted 02-14-2007 05:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bella con23  Send Email to Bella con23     
I agree with David. I have had my 1999 230 Conquest in some nasty chop/swell combination off Sandy Hook, NJ and I am convinced the boat will take more the crew can.
jimh posted 02-16-2007 12:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Implicit in your question is a notion that the further offshore one goes the worse the conditions likely to be found. I do not think this is true. The worst wave height and surf conditions are often encountered near to shore.

The distance offshore one goes is more related to the boat's range than to a limitation due to a presumption that wave height will increase as one goes offshore.

I do not have any first-hand experience in either the 205 CONQUEST or the 235 CONQUEST, but based on my observation of the two boats, their size, and their hulls, I would much prefer to be in a 235 CONQUEST in any sort of rough seas.

David1877 posted 02-26-2007 06:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for David1877  Send Email to David1877     
I own an Eastport/Conquest 205. I purchased the rig mid last season and have limited experience in rough water over about 4'. The Eastport handled this well.

I have no personal experience with the Conquest 23. I owned a Dauntless 18 prior to the Eastport. The dauntless was very seaworthy and stable but the Eastport handling characteristics and ride are an improvement on Lake Michigan.

Both hulls are self bailing.

Although I try to avoid boating on days when the waves are 4' or more, I have been in rougher conditions and never took water over the side. I am every bit as confident in teh Eastport as I was in my dauntless.

I have often questioned if my Eastport hull is based on the Dauntless or Outrage hull design.

The Conquest hull may not be as deep as other models. If you seek a deep hull that will handle rought seas well, you may want to consider the outrage series.

Bella con23 posted 02-26-2007 06:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bella con23  Send Email to Bella con23     
It's my understanding that the Conquest and Outrage models are cut from the same mold.
Jordi posted 02-26-2007 07:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jordi    
Bella,
I think you meant to write "the Dauntless shares the Conquest hull" not the hull of the Outrage.
Jordi
David Pendleton posted 02-26-2007 07:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
No, he meant Outrage. And he's correct.
jimh posted 02-27-2007 09:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Most of the current Boston Whaler hull designs are NOT shared among several models.
David Pendleton posted 02-27-2007 07:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
Correct, I should have said my 1999 230 Conquest shares the same hull as the 1999 230 Outrage.

I believe this is true for other years of these two models.

David1877 posted 03-09-2007 04:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for David1877  Send Email to David1877     
I have questioned this matter myself. The hull specc on the Eastport and comperable Dauntless and Conquest models are different.

I believe the Eastport hull is deeper than the Dauntless simply because it rides differently. The Dauntless 18 is more stable. The Eastport handles rough seas more comfortably underway.

I think oder Whaler catalogues reference the outrage hull in the description of the conquest. I dont think that refernce is present in current literature.

This might be a question for Chuck Bennett at Whaler.

tully_mars posted 03-10-2007 08:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for tully_mars  Send Email to tully_mars     
Back when I had my 23 Conquest, I ran 50 miles offshore in a fishing tournament. (which we won) Because of fuel limitations that is about the max of the range.

TM

prm1177 posted 03-11-2007 02:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
I've had my 1998 Conquest 23 out in really snotty weather on SF Bay (seas 4-5 ft, and confused). With the weather curtains up, the ride was reasonable for the 8-10 miles I had to travel. I've had mine out in the Pacific about 20 miles and judge my round-trip range to be about 150 miles (with a 100 mile safety margin).
David1877 posted 03-14-2007 05:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for David1877  Send Email to David1877     
To
<cbennett@whaler.com>
Chuck-

You are most likely familiar with the Continuous Wave Whaler Listserve.

There is a current discussion about Conquest hulls. Most like the Dauntless or Outrage??

I have questioned this myself. I added this to my post.

I have questioned this matter myself. The hull specs on the Eastport and comparable Dauntless and Conquest models are different.

I believe the Eastport hull is deeper than the Dauntless simply because it rides differently. The Dauntless 18 is more stable. The Eastport handles rough seas more comfortably underway.

I think older Whaler catalogues reference the outrage hull in the description of the conquest. I don’t think that reference is present in current literature.

This might be a question for Chuck Bennett at Whaler.

I asked and he responded........

Hi David,

The 205 Eastport/Conquest isn't really a copy of a previous (or newer) Outrage model. I'd say that the 205 leans more towards the Outrage design than the Dauntless, though.
20'9" long, 8'4" beam, 18 degree deadrise at the transom and a 22" interior freeboard give this boat an Offshore design category.
The Dauntless models (with the exception of the 220) have an Inshore design category.
The Dauntless models have between 19" to 20" interior freeboard and run between a 16 degree deadrise at the transom (for the 160, 200 and 220 models) and a 17 degree deadrise at the transom of the 180 Dauntless.

Regards,
Chuck

dogface posted 03-19-2007 10:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for dogface  Send Email to dogface     
I own a 28 Conqest. I had it out 30 miles over night with seas running 7 to 10 feet. I felt safe and secure. Went home next morning running 7 feet. Got home safe and sound. We did take it slow on the way back to Cedar Key.
Dave

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.