New Outrage CE Certification Design Category

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  New Outrage CE Certification Design Category

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   New Outrage CE Certification Design Category

Jordi posted 03-01-2009 06:06 AM ET (US)
As an avid offshore/inshore fisherman I pay attention to the objective CE certification of the Boston Whaler hulls as an objective measure of seaworthiness. I have found the Boston Whaler products rated in the category B to be good performers when the weather gets ugly offshore and the category C Boston Whalers to be average performers offshore in the same conditions. (Makes sense this is how CE certification is derived). The older 210 and 240 Outrage models were both rated category B and perform well in offshore conditions. What surprised me is that the new 2009 Outrage hull in the 220 and 250 Outrage are both rated category C (Inshore). How can this new "offshore" Outrage only be rated category C.? I am hoping this is indeed a misprint and Whaler had done its homework and not produced an offshore looking hull with an inshore performance rating. If indeed this is the case, Brunswick needs to get their act together and go back to Boston Whaler basics. Below is the CE rating from Boston Whaler owners manual on their web site.
Jordi
CE Certification Design Category
A (Ocean): Designed for extended voyages
where conditions may exceed wind force 8 on the
Beaufort scale (47 mph and above) and significant
wave heights of 4 meters (13.12 feet) and above, and
vessels largely self-sufficient.
B (Offshore): Designed for offshore voyages
where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8
(39-46 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and
including 4 meters (13.12 feet) may be
experienced.
C (Inshore): Designed for voyages in coastal
waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers
where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6
(25-31 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and
including, 2 meters (6.56 feet) may be
experienced.
D (Sheltered waters): Designed for voyages on
small lakes, rivers and canals where conditions up
to, and including, wind force 4 (13-18 mph) and
significant wave heights up to, and including, 0.5
meters (1.64) feet may be experienced.
The significant wave height is considered to be the
primary factor for determining design category. Other
parameters (e.g. meteorological) are descriptions of
when these wave heights may be expected to occur.

Phil T posted 03-01-2009 10:42 AM ET (US)
Jordi -
Thanks for this research. Very interesting.
Page 2-2 of the Outrage 220 Owners manual shows the CE plate indicating class C.
cf: http://www.whaler.com/site_media/Boat_Manuals/220_OR_09.PDF
Phil
=Formerly Casco Bay Outrage=
SJUAE posted 03-01-2009 02:26 PM ET (US)
Here's a 210 vs a 220 plate side by side for easy reference
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1201/cestamp210and220.jpg
Regards
Steve
SJUAE posted 03-01-2009 02:57 PM ET (US)
Sorry imageshack squished it, this should be better:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8875/2cestamp210and220.jpg
SC Joe posted 03-01-2009 06:28 PM ET (US)
Yeah..they have rated the Montauk 170 rated as a "C" as well.
hauptjm posted 03-01-2009 06:40 PM ET (US)
Checking out several larger models indicated that the 250 Outrage also carries a rating of C. The 280 and 320 showed a rating of B. Not to be nasty, but you can spend close to $100,000 on a 25ft. Offshore Center Console and the company that manufactures it doesn't considered it an Offshore Boat.
Wow!
Jordi posted 03-01-2009 07:39 PM ET (US)
hauptjm,
The marketing folks at Boston Whaler are passing these new Outrage models as offshore boats which in the past met the CE criteria. With the new "improved" hull the rating drops to an inshore boat costing some serious dollars. The boys and girls counting the beans at Whaler need to stop driving "cost" and deliver high quality performing boats. I can appreciate cost containment in the economy we live in, but craftsmanship ad design that under rates the Outrage line which historically has been a true offshore boat is inexcusable. I am surprised how few folks pay attention to objective ratings like CE and buy boats that are designed to perform in different environments. I can appreciate Jim's long threads on how wonderful the quality of the new outrage is...except when I saw the inshore rating.
Jordi
hauptjm posted 03-01-2009 09:16 PM ET (US)
I think this discussion should appear in the GAM section, where it would see a much wider audience that it deserves. I'm extremely disappointed to see this development at Whaler. I'm trying to ascertain where the competition is rated at the these same sizes. If Pursuit, Everglades, Contender, etc. are coming out at better ratings, Whaler may be putting the gun to their own heads.
jimh posted 03-01-2009 10:01 PM ET (US)
In my opinion, we're seeing the work of corporate lawyers, not naval architects. If the trend continues, Boston Whaler will soon drop the term "unsinkable."
Perry posted 03-01-2009 10:47 PM ET (US)
I agree with jimh, it has more to do with liability issues (ie. the 21' Everglades that went mising in the Gulf) than seaworthiness.
SJUAE posted 03-02-2009 04:12 AM ET (US)
So will this mean if you have a personal accident offshore in a new 220 your insurance may be voided as you are operating it outside its certified Design Category, where you were ok in the old 210.
Jordi posted 03-02-2009 07:55 AM ET (US)
Gents,
Liability issues...hmmmmm. Nonsense, the swamp capacity of the new Outrage has dropped dramatically and the rating in the 220 and 250 is for inshore use period. If we asked ourselves "what is the boat designed to do"? Can the boat be safely navigated in lakes, calm waters or aggressive seas? We should have an objective rating that gives us this information without the subjective ranting of a captain saying I take my Montauk 170 offshore is 5 foot swells with no problem. Many captains can and do, but are the boats designed to do that type of voyage safely. Safety is a big deal to many of us that take our families and loved ones in the seas. The beauty of the CE rating is that "A CE mark means that a Boston Whaler has been certified with the applicable international Organization for Standardization directives." This is not a bunch of Whaler folks thinking, “let me see where does the new hull fit into the CE category? As is evident in my E mails I am very disappointed in Boston Whaler for down grading the current 220 and 250 Outrage. On a positive note the old Outrage 210 and 240 were pretty seaworthy vessels at a rating of B. I was impressed by the fact that a 21 foot Outrage and Ventura which are not big offshore boats could meet the criteria for CE offshore use. This to me is a leader in the industry and a company willing to excel. To me and many on this board that is what a Boston Whaler symbolizes. Prices of new vessels continue to go up and we should demand a quality product worthy of a CE rating. As I write this E mail there are two professional football players missing in my waters (waters I fish in) last seen on a 21 foot boat leaving the docks Saturday. Not many 21 foot boats could handle the conditions we had this past weekend in Tampa and knowing what that particular boat could handle is important. There are probably only a few 21 foot boats that meet the CE rating for offshore use. If there are any others I love to see the list. My prayers are with the men on that boat and their families.
Jordi
bluewaterpirate posted 03-02-2009 09:35 AM ET (US)
Now I ask you, looking at the definition of a class B boat do you really think many 25 and under boats meet these specs.
B (Offshore): Designed for offshore voyages
where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8
(39-46 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and
including 4 meters (13.12 feet) may be
experienced.
My 210 Ventura is rated Class B but I can tell you from experience I push the envelop operating this boat 50 miles offshore. Realistically, looking at the designations the 210 should carry a C rating. In my 40 years of boating, I've never been asked by any insurance company what the class designation of my boat was. I have been asked the length, area of operation and distance from shore I plan to operate.
Whaler has changed the hull design of these new Outrages (more deadrise means deeper hulls). They have wider beams, the same freeboard heights as their predissors, and are rated to carry more horsepower. After driving the new 250 Outrage in some pretty rugged conditions I can tell you the boat rides better (softer)in a head sea, is much drier, and handles as good as earlier hull designs.
Could we have purist bias again?
Tom
hauptjm posted 03-02-2009 12:36 PM ET (US)
Tom,
I assure you my disappointment with these ratings is anything but "purist bias." Offshore boating means just that, Offshore. There is no measurement of mileage that dictates when a boat is offshore. I have been within 5 miles of a shoreline in unprotected waters in seas that would make many folks cringe.
With that said, my hypothetically very expensive 25ft. center console that is in no uncertain terms promoted, marketed and sold as an offshore vessel turns out to be not an offshore boat. In fact, the very company that manufacturers said boat makes a smaller version that does rate as an offshore boat.
In regard to insurance, it would not take a very talented attorney to defend an insurance company against a claim for an incident that occurs in offshore locations if that hull was not supposed to be utilized in those conditions/locations.
There is a reason the swamp capacities are dropping in these boats. Making larger platforms just to sell larger (more expensive) outboards is not a healthy trend in this market segment. These are not flashy cruisers, but utilitarian fishing boats with a lot of competition from other manufacturers that are purchased by people who can afford to be discerning.
Jim
Tohsgib posted 03-02-2009 12:42 PM ET (US)
Has anyone read the 2009 brochure? What do they describe the boat as? Do they talk about the great offshore capabilities in the new outrages that are actually not rated for offshore use?
Tom W Clark posted 03-02-2009 12:51 PM ET (US)
There is nothing on Whaler's web site that indicates the 250 Outrage is intended for offshore use.
They have numerous photos and a video of that model. They show the boat operating in nothing but baby-butt smooth water.
Tohsgib posted 03-02-2009 12:57 PM ET (US)
1982/83 brochure reads:
"There are a couple generations of fisherman out there to whom the word "Montauk" means blue water, bending rods and bins of shining dinners. Because Boston Whaler's Montauk 17' is the ace number one best fish catching platform that ever went to sea-and after 22 years of service, there's no way any other boat's going to catch up. Seventeen feet of somebody else's boat would make you think twice about going offshore. But 17 feet of Boston Whaler is fast enough to beat sportfisherman to the hot spots, stable enough to slug it out with the lumpiest seas, and comfortable enough to skim home high and dry while the other guys are still struggling with the anchor."
Also quoted:
"I sold another type boat becaue I wanted a boat that would'nt own me. I use my Montauk for everything from offshore trips to chasing bluefish. It's easily managed and economical-six hours on about 6 gallons, cruising. This boat goes everywhere the big ones go, and will get me back. It gives me all the serviceability of a larger boat, without the overbearing maintenance, expense and headaches." Frank Hunt, Falmouth Heights, MA.
Now I bet a lawyer would not allow that brochure to go to print these days. What engine is he running that he burns 1gph at CRUISE???
hauptjm posted 03-02-2009 01:03 PM ET (US)
Tom C.,
I agree, the few photos of the new boat are shown under bridges, along tree lined shores, etc. But, you have to admit, she would look funny running with her Northstar Radome 4 kw radar, refrigerated bucket at leaning post, fold down trolling seats, hardtop radial outriggers and all of those rocket launchers crossing Walden Pond!
Jim
hauptjm posted 03-02-2009 01:07 PM ET (US)
Sorry, I couldn't resist: trolling for Crappies!
bluewaterpirate posted 03-02-2009 01:58 PM ET (US)
Remember Jim Whaler changed to Raymarine as the marine electronincs vendor of choice .....

From an electronics purist at heart.
Tom
SJUAE posted 03-02-2009 03:20 PM ET (US)
Given that the most valued safety factor on a boat is the skill and experience of the nut behind the wheel.
Assuming most owners only put 50-100 hrs on their engines per year where most of this is at not planning speeds. So to gain a high skill level takes a considerable amount of time.
Therefore, you would presume that buying a vessel with a certified design category higher than your intended use would be a reasonable thing to do to increase your confidence level (rightly or wrongly) whilst skill and experience are gained.
I don’t believe this is clever marketing to encourage buying larger boats for those who wish to own a more capable boat than their skill level.
I think BW has just ignored those who think this is an important factor.
I wonder if BW has in fact left itself open to claims for out fitting an inshore rated boat with equipment/tackle intended for use offshore.
I know an analogy could be drawn against high performance cars encourage speeding for example, but I would not want to put it to the test as not all the arguments are equal.
Jordi posted 03-02-2009 08:24 PM ET (US)
Tom,
I concur with you on the limits of the 210 Hull under certain conditions. Perhaps Whaler can explain why CE should ever make a difference to a boat owner. Purist bias...are you kidding. I want objective criteria in evaluating a boat, subjective observations like the one you make regarding the 250 are just that...subjective. Appreciated but not enough in my opinion. Outrage has always been one of the offshore boats in Whalers lineup. Let's hope that continues....
Jordi
bluewaterpirate posted 03-02-2009 10:16 PM ET (US)
Jordi ....
We'll just have to agree to disagree. As always enjoy your insight.
Tom
Frank O posted 03-03-2009 01:49 AM ET (US)

quote:
The older 210 and 240 Outrage models were both rated category B and perform well in offshore conditions.
Just so I can orient myself -- which model years of 210 Outrage would those older ones (that earned the category B) have been?
Jordi posted 03-03-2009 07:14 AM ET (US)
Tom/Frank,
Good healthy dialogue is what this forum is all about. I appreciate your knowledge. The 210 Outrage referenced was the 03-08 model year. It would be interesting to know what the previous generation Outrages carry as their CE ratings.
Jordi
Tohsgib posted 03-03-2009 12:46 PM ET (US)
My 1981 13 sport is rated "A".
alvispollard posted 03-03-2009 07:09 PM ET (US)
What CE rating is a 1990 montauk?
alvispollard posted 03-03-2009 07:11 PM ET (US)
Where is the CE rating posted on the boat?
wood duck posted 03-03-2009 11:30 PM ET (US)
I do not believe the CE rating is posted on the boat. It can be found in your owner's manual.
SJUAE posted 03-05-2009 11:03 AM ET (US)
Here's a link with some insight on how ISO-12217-1 is applied to give the 4 CE ratings
http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/vessel-stability/ guidelines-iso-12217-1.htm
I wonder what part of the 6 qualifications for B rating the new outrages failed on ?
Bluewaterpirate noted in his personal observations the new outrages seem to ride better, as we would hope for larger/heavier boats
.
Maybe Jordi is on the right track re swampped capacity or clearing of water.

Jordi posted 03-05-2009 07:29 PM ET (US)
SJUAE,
Thanks for the link to the information. There are a lot of knowledgeable folks on this forum that perhaps can chime in into their speculations to Whaler's new CE Outrage ratings.
Jordi

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.

Author	Topic: New Outrage CE Certification Design Category
Jordi	posted 03-01-2009 06:06 AM ET (US) As an avid offshore/inshore fisherman I pay attention to the objective CE certification of the Boston Whaler hulls as an objective measure of seaworthiness. I have found the Boston Whaler products rated in the category B to be good performers when the weather gets ugly offshore and the category C Boston Whalers to be average performers offshore in the same conditions. (Makes sense this is how CE certification is derived). The older 210 and 240 Outrage models were both rated category B and perform well in offshore conditions. What surprised me is that the new 2009 Outrage hull in the 220 and 250 Outrage are both rated category C (Inshore). How can this new "offshore" Outrage only be rated category C.? I am hoping this is indeed a misprint and Whaler had done its homework and not produced an offshore looking hull with an inshore performance rating. If indeed this is the case, Brunswick needs to get their act together and go back to Boston Whaler basics. Below is the CE rating from Boston Whaler owners manual on their web site. Jordi CE Certification Design Category A (Ocean): Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 on the Beaufort scale (47 mph and above) and significant wave heights of 4 meters (13.12 feet) and above, and vessels largely self-sufficient. B (Offshore): Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 (39-46 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and including 4 meters (13.12 feet) may be experienced. C (Inshore): Designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6 (25-31 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2 meters (6.56 feet) may be experienced. D (Sheltered waters): Designed for voyages on small lakes, rivers and canals where conditions up to, and including, wind force 4 (13-18 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0.5 meters (1.64) feet may be experienced. The significant wave height is considered to be the primary factor for determining design category. Other parameters (e.g. meteorological) are descriptions of when these wave heights may be expected to occur.
Phil T	posted 03-01-2009 10:42 AM ET (US) Jordi - Thanks for this research. Very interesting. Page 2-2 of the Outrage 220 Owners manual shows the CE plate indicating class C. cf: http://www.whaler.com/site_media/Boat_Manuals/220_OR_09.PDF Phil =Formerly Casco Bay Outrage=
SJUAE	posted 03-01-2009 02:26 PM ET (US) Here's a 210 vs a 220 plate side by side for easy reference http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1201/cestamp210and220.jpg Regards Steve
SJUAE	posted 03-01-2009 02:57 PM ET (US) Sorry imageshack squished it, this should be better: http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8875/2cestamp210and220.jpg
SC Joe	posted 03-01-2009 06:28 PM ET (US) Yeah..they have rated the Montauk 170 rated as a "C" as well.
hauptjm	posted 03-01-2009 06:40 PM ET (US) Checking out several larger models indicated that the 250 Outrage also carries a rating of C. The 280 and 320 showed a rating of B. Not to be nasty, but you can spend close to $100,000 on a 25ft. Offshore Center Console and the company that manufactures it doesn't considered it an Offshore Boat. Wow!
Jordi	posted 03-01-2009 07:39 PM ET (US) hauptjm, The marketing folks at Boston Whaler are passing these new Outrage models as offshore boats which in the past met the CE criteria. With the new "improved" hull the rating drops to an inshore boat costing some serious dollars. The boys and girls counting the beans at Whaler need to stop driving "cost" and deliver high quality performing boats. I can appreciate cost containment in the economy we live in, but craftsmanship ad design that under rates the Outrage line which historically has been a true offshore boat is inexcusable. I am surprised how few folks pay attention to objective ratings like CE and buy boats that are designed to perform in different environments. I can appreciate Jim's long threads on how wonderful the quality of the new outrage is...except when I saw the inshore rating. Jordi
hauptjm	posted 03-01-2009 09:16 PM ET (US) I think this discussion should appear in the GAM section, where it would see a much wider audience that it deserves. I'm extremely disappointed to see this development at Whaler. I'm trying to ascertain where the competition is rated at the these same sizes. If Pursuit, Everglades, Contender, etc. are coming out at better ratings, Whaler may be putting the gun to their own heads.
jimh	posted 03-01-2009 10:01 PM ET (US) In my opinion, we're seeing the work of corporate lawyers, not naval architects. If the trend continues, Boston Whaler will soon drop the term "unsinkable."
Perry	posted 03-01-2009 10:47 PM ET (US) I agree with jimh, it has more to do with liability issues (ie. the 21' Everglades that went mising in the Gulf) than seaworthiness.
SJUAE	posted 03-02-2009 04:12 AM ET (US) So will this mean if you have a personal accident offshore in a new 220 your insurance may be voided as you are operating it outside its certified Design Category, where you were ok in the old 210.
Jordi	posted 03-02-2009 07:55 AM ET (US) Gents, Liability issues...hmmmmm. Nonsense, the swamp capacity of the new Outrage has dropped dramatically and the rating in the 220 and 250 is for inshore use period. If we asked ourselves "what is the boat designed to do"? Can the boat be safely navigated in lakes, calm waters or aggressive seas? We should have an objective rating that gives us this information without the subjective ranting of a captain saying I take my Montauk 170 offshore is 5 foot swells with no problem. Many captains can and do, but are the boats designed to do that type of voyage safely. Safety is a big deal to many of us that take our families and loved ones in the seas. The beauty of the CE rating is that "A CE mark means that a Boston Whaler has been certified with the applicable international Organization for Standardization directives." This is not a bunch of Whaler folks thinking, “let me see where does the new hull fit into the CE category? As is evident in my E mails I am very disappointed in Boston Whaler for down grading the current 220 and 250 Outrage. On a positive note the old Outrage 210 and 240 were pretty seaworthy vessels at a rating of B. I was impressed by the fact that a 21 foot Outrage and Ventura which are not big offshore boats could meet the criteria for CE offshore use. This to me is a leader in the industry and a company willing to excel. To me and many on this board that is what a Boston Whaler symbolizes. Prices of new vessels continue to go up and we should demand a quality product worthy of a CE rating. As I write this E mail there are two professional football players missing in my waters (waters I fish in) last seen on a 21 foot boat leaving the docks Saturday. Not many 21 foot boats could handle the conditions we had this past weekend in Tampa and knowing what that particular boat could handle is important. There are probably only a few 21 foot boats that meet the CE rating for offshore use. If there are any others I love to see the list. My prayers are with the men on that boat and their families. Jordi
bluewaterpirate	posted 03-02-2009 09:35 AM ET (US) Now I ask you, looking at the definition of a class B boat do you really think many 25 and under boats meet these specs. B (Offshore): Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 (39-46 mph) and significant wave heights up to, and including 4 meters (13.12 feet) may be experienced. My 210 Ventura is rated Class B but I can tell you from experience I push the envelop operating this boat 50 miles offshore. Realistically, looking at the designations the 210 should carry a C rating. In my 40 years of boating, I've never been asked by any insurance company what the class designation of my boat was. I have been asked the length, area of operation and distance from shore I plan to operate. Whaler has changed the hull design of these new Outrages (more deadrise means deeper hulls). They have wider beams, the same freeboard heights as their predissors, and are rated to carry more horsepower. After driving the new 250 Outrage in some pretty rugged conditions I can tell you the boat rides better (softer)in a head sea, is much drier, and handles as good as earlier hull designs. Could we have purist bias again? Tom
hauptjm	posted 03-02-2009 12:36 PM ET (US) Tom, I assure you my disappointment with these ratings is anything but "purist bias." Offshore boating means just that, Offshore. There is no measurement of mileage that dictates when a boat is offshore. I have been within 5 miles of a shoreline in unprotected waters in seas that would make many folks cringe. With that said, my hypothetically very expensive 25ft. center console that is in no uncertain terms promoted, marketed and sold as an offshore vessel turns out to be not an offshore boat. In fact, the very company that manufacturers said boat makes a smaller version that does rate as an offshore boat. In regard to insurance, it would not take a very talented attorney to defend an insurance company against a claim for an incident that occurs in offshore locations if that hull was not supposed to be utilized in those conditions/locations. There is a reason the swamp capacities are dropping in these boats. Making larger platforms just to sell larger (more expensive) outboards is not a healthy trend in this market segment. These are not flashy cruisers, but utilitarian fishing boats with a lot of competition from other manufacturers that are purchased by people who can afford to be discerning. Jim
Tohsgib	posted 03-02-2009 12:42 PM ET (US) Has anyone read the 2009 brochure? What do they describe the boat as? Do they talk about the great offshore capabilities in the new outrages that are actually not rated for offshore use?
Tom W Clark	posted 03-02-2009 12:51 PM ET (US) There is nothing on Whaler's web site that indicates the 250 Outrage is intended for offshore use. They have numerous photos and a video of that model. They show the boat operating in nothing but baby-butt smooth water.
Tohsgib	posted 03-02-2009 12:57 PM ET (US) 1982/83 brochure reads: "There are a couple generations of fisherman out there to whom the word "Montauk" means blue water, bending rods and bins of shining dinners. Because Boston Whaler's Montauk 17' is the ace number one best fish catching platform that ever went to sea-and after 22 years of service, there's no way any other boat's going to catch up. Seventeen feet of somebody else's boat would make you think twice about going offshore. But 17 feet of Boston Whaler is fast enough to beat sportfisherman to the hot spots, stable enough to slug it out with the lumpiest seas, and comfortable enough to skim home high and dry while the other guys are still struggling with the anchor." Also quoted: "I sold another type boat becaue I wanted a boat that would'nt own me. I use my Montauk for everything from offshore trips to chasing bluefish. It's easily managed and economical-six hours on about 6 gallons, cruising. This boat goes everywhere the big ones go, and will get me back. It gives me all the serviceability of a larger boat, without the overbearing maintenance, expense and headaches." Frank Hunt, Falmouth Heights, MA. Now I bet a lawyer would not allow that brochure to go to print these days. What engine is he running that he burns 1gph at CRUISE???
hauptjm	posted 03-02-2009 01:03 PM ET (US) Tom C., I agree, the few photos of the new boat are shown under bridges, along tree lined shores, etc. But, you have to admit, she would look funny running with her Northstar Radome 4 kw radar, refrigerated bucket at leaning post, fold down trolling seats, hardtop radial outriggers and all of those rocket launchers crossing Walden Pond! Jim
hauptjm	posted 03-02-2009 01:07 PM ET (US) Sorry, I couldn't resist: trolling for Crappies!
bluewaterpirate	posted 03-02-2009 01:58 PM ET (US) Remember Jim Whaler changed to Raymarine as the marine electronincs vendor of choice ..... From an electronics purist at heart. Tom
SJUAE	posted 03-02-2009 03:20 PM ET (US) Given that the most valued safety factor on a boat is the skill and experience of the nut behind the wheel. Assuming most owners only put 50-100 hrs on their engines per year where most of this is at not planning speeds. So to gain a high skill level takes a considerable amount of time. Therefore, you would presume that buying a vessel with a certified design category higher than your intended use would be a reasonable thing to do to increase your confidence level (rightly or wrongly) whilst skill and experience are gained. I don’t believe this is clever marketing to encourage buying larger boats for those who wish to own a more capable boat than their skill level. I think BW has just ignored those who think this is an important factor. I wonder if BW has in fact left itself open to claims for out fitting an inshore rated boat with equipment/tackle intended for use offshore. I know an analogy could be drawn against high performance cars encourage speeding for example, but I would not want to put it to the test as not all the arguments are equal.
Jordi	posted 03-02-2009 08:24 PM ET (US) Tom, I concur with you on the limits of the 210 Hull under certain conditions. Perhaps Whaler can explain why CE should ever make a difference to a boat owner. Purist bias...are you kidding. I want objective criteria in evaluating a boat, subjective observations like the one you make regarding the 250 are just that...subjective. Appreciated but not enough in my opinion. Outrage has always been one of the offshore boats in Whalers lineup. Let's hope that continues.... Jordi
bluewaterpirate	posted 03-02-2009 10:16 PM ET (US) Jordi .... We'll just have to agree to disagree. As always enjoy your insight. Tom
Frank O	posted 03-03-2009 01:49 AM ET (US) quote: The older 210 and 240 Outrage models were both rated category B and perform well in offshore conditions. Just so I can orient myself -- which model years of 210 Outrage would those older ones (that earned the category B) have been?
Jordi	posted 03-03-2009 07:14 AM ET (US) Tom/Frank, Good healthy dialogue is what this forum is all about. I appreciate your knowledge. The 210 Outrage referenced was the 03-08 model year. It would be interesting to know what the previous generation Outrages carry as their CE ratings. Jordi
Tohsgib	posted 03-03-2009 12:46 PM ET (US) My 1981 13 sport is rated "A".
alvispollard	posted 03-03-2009 07:09 PM ET (US) What CE rating is a 1990 montauk?
alvispollard	posted 03-03-2009 07:11 PM ET (US) Where is the CE rating posted on the boat?
wood duck	posted 03-03-2009 11:30 PM ET (US) I do not believe the CE rating is posted on the boat. It can be found in your owner's manual.
SJUAE	posted 03-05-2009 11:03 AM ET (US) Here's a link with some insight on how ISO-12217-1 is applied to give the 4 CE ratings http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/vessel-stability/ guidelines-iso-12217-1.htm I wonder what part of the 6 qualifications for B rating the new outrages failed on ? Bluewaterpirate noted in his personal observations the new outrages seem to ride better, as we would hope for larger/heavier boats . Maybe Jordi is on the right track re swampped capacity or clearing of water.
Jordi	posted 03-05-2009 07:29 PM ET (US) SJUAE, Thanks for the link to the information. There are a lot of knowledgeable folks on this forum that perhaps can chime in into their speculations to Whaler's new CE Outrage ratings. Jordi