Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  190 Nantucket

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

Author Topic:   190 Nantucket
Whaler Enthusiast posted 02-20-2003 09:27 AM ET (US)   Profile for Whaler Enthusiast   Send Email to Whaler Enthusiast  
Just saw the new 190 Nantucket at the boston boat show nice lookin but very pricey at $31000
11 footer posted 02-20-2003 09:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for 11 footer  Send Email to 11 footer     
I saw the same boat at the same show. I really liked the boat, the two seats near the transom is something that whaler should have done a long time ago. Very pricey though,,, I'll neaver own one.


gf posted 02-20-2003 01:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for gf  Send Email to gf     

Very pricey

I'm not so sure.

This has been discussed a little bit over the past week on some other posts, but a new 19' Boston Whaler for $31K, figure $33K with a carb 150, doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. That's a lower price than a 18' Dauntless and the new Nantucket is a more versatile hull, in my opinion.

I will never own a new one either, but I think it is a pretty fair price given the prices of Whaler's other models.

Heck, the Grady White 209 at the Boston show was over $47K, the Contender 21 was $44K.

jimh posted 02-20-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I just posted an extensive photo review of the new 190-OUTRAGE as seen at the Boston Boat show, complete with threaded links to a discussion of the boat.

You might consider that article and the thread linked to it as a better place to post your comments about the boat.


jaccoserv posted 02-20-2003 03:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for jaccoserv  Send Email to jaccoserv     
Just a side note, the 190 Nantucket was at the miami boat show sans bimini, but with a clarion cd player, speakers, and dash mounted remote.....The price?
lhg posted 02-20-2003 04:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
It sounds like all "Boat Show Specials" are not equal. It's what the exhibiting Dealer thinks his market will bear.

I would not buy one of those with a "lowball special" 115 on it. Even on the Classic 18 Outrage, weighing only 1250 lbs, a 115 is minimal, although acceptable, HP.

BWdaunt18 posted 02-25-2003 06:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for BWdaunt18  Send Email to BWdaunt18     
That is not too bad of a price.

The nantucket looks like a deeper hull, more like the outrage. It appears it offers less passenger seating that the Daunt 18.

Nantucket probably will ride better in rough water.

seasicknes posted 03-03-2003 02:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
I did not see fishbox's in the specs.
meissner posted 09-09-2003 03:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for meissner  Send Email to meissner     
Does anyone know the deadrise (at stern) of the Nantucket? I was set to purchase a Montauk until I saw the Nantucket. I was hoping to gain more info however with repect to performance. Would a significantly softer ride in a 2' chop be expected with the 19'? How well does the Montauk do in such conditions? I have yet to sea trial the boat.

I'm a big fan of the classic whaler style but don't have any first hand experience with them.

Thanks for any help.


Will Adams posted 09-09-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Will Adams  Send Email to Will Adams     
I thought I heard the Nantucket is based on the smaller outrages such as the outrage 18. It is a new age version.
jimh posted 09-09-2003 08:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Eight months ago this same question was asked when the CETACEA page that introduced the 190 NANTUCKET to most visitors to continuousWave first appeared, along with this thread.

There is really no published specification for deadrise because the hull is not a constant deadrise design. The older classic Boston Whaler boat hulls were constant deadrise designs, like the famous Bertram race boat MOPPIE--the astonishing winner of many offshore races that pioneered the deep vee constant deadrise hull form.

The 190 NANTUCKET hull tapers from a sharp bow entry to a very moderate and rounded v-bottom at the stern.


Moe posted 09-10-2003 01:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
What Jim says is true, but there's a little more to it. In general, about halfway back, the V at the bow transitions to a shallow rounded hull between the strakes (the inner strakes on the 190), with no evident keel.

With the 150 and 170 this shallow rounding is between two strakes, but there are straight sections on each side, outboard of the strakes, which have a fairly constant angle from the stern forward until it increases toward the bow. I guess that constant angle could be referred to as the deadrise.

On the 190 Nantucket, the gently rounded center section isn't as wide as the 170's, and the straight sections on either side of it are much wider, having two strakes on each side. I can't tell if the angle is the same as the 170's, but the longer straight sections result in the center of the transom being deeper than the 170's, and more of the bottom being in the V part than in the central rounded part. So yes, I believe the 190 would be better when landing stern first into a wave.

As a matter of interest, the horizontal sections of the stern bottom, at the outboard ends, are where the reverse chines aka sponsons terminate. Unlike classics, where you can see the inverted V, here it is filled in with a little triangular section that slopes down from the peak of the inverted V, about 6" forward of the stern, to the stern, where it is flat.

On the 190, these outboard flat sections appear less wide than on the 170 and 150, indicating the reverse chines are less wide and deep. That also appears to be the case from the bow view.

The reason the 170 and 150 sides appear to be concave in the forward half, and the 190 doesn't, is because the 170 and 150 bows are square, and the sides of the hull flare out to meet these outer bow corners. The 190 bow is rounded and there isn't so much of that. Additionally, the outer part of its smaller sponsons is angled to match the hull, where the outer part of the sponsons on the 170 and 150 are vertical in the forward section. The line of the vestigial smirk slopes more gently aft than it does on the 170 and 150, where the sponsons start more forward, relative to the boat length, than they do on the 190.

Just my observations.

meissner posted 09-11-2003 10:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for meissner  Send Email to meissner     
Thanks for all of your reply's. I will continue to research. Could anyone attest to the handling characteristics of the 170. I boat on the Chesapeake (Annapolis) and experiance a regular 1-3' chop (primarly from boat traffic). My current boat is a 22' CC which only has a 10 degree deadrise. My teeth rattle most of the time even in a minor chop at 20 MPH. I attribute this to the low degree deadrise hull.

Thanks again, Bill

Moe posted 09-11-2003 11:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Since the 170 and 190 were designed after Bob Dougherty left the company in 1990, this thread really belongs in the "Post-Classics" forum. That is where you'll find considerable testimony about the 170, from many 170 owners.

Go to the Post-Classics Forum.

On the right side of the page, select "Show topics from the last two years" and click "Go"

Then use your browser's "Find on this page" function (under the Edit menu in IE) to Find the word 170

When you get to each occurance, open that thread in a new window (or new tab in Mac's Safari browser). This will allow you to continue the Find in the original window.

You may also want to do this in the "Performance" forum (view two years).

Finally, there are a coupla good 170 threads, one in particular, in the "Cetecea Comments" forum (view two years)

You can do the same with the 190.

Hope this helps,

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.