620: Lagoon 620 as a Bluewater Cruiser for Circumnavigation ?

[Poco Loco III]

Dear Mehmet,

I'm looking for a nice jet, can I have your thoughts on the new Dassault Falcon 7x?.. :-)
Sorry i couldn't resist, just wanted to say that the 500 for us is realy already on the max as far as physical strenght is concerned and I'm 1.96m, I don't see how you can run a larger cat whithout sufficient crew.

groet patrick

[Dockhead]

You guys are harsh.

I personally think a Lagoon 620 is a fantastic vessel for a trade winds circumnav. With 60,000 pounds of displacement and 33 feet (!) of beam it will be extremely stable and comfortable. Like having your own little cruise liner. An astounding amount of boat for the money, and more boat is better, in my opinion, when you're crossing oceans (if not when you're berthing).

I don't think it will need more crew than you would anyway want crossing oceans. My own experience is that larger boats with powered winches and furling gear are easier to sail than smaller boats without this. I can easily sail my Moody 54 (48,000 pounds loaded displacement) single handed even in a blow. Yes, the forces on the rig are greater, but the stability of a larger boat is so much greater. Physical strength doesn't come into play at all once you're over 50 feet, not even docking (you can no longer influence the position of the boat with human bodies anyway).

As to marina berths, you will hardly need those for a boat like this anyway. You'll have a full-size RIB as a tender and will mostly lie at anchor like superyachts do. Which is what this actually is.

Of course he's going to have to go try different boats and do a lot more research. But impressions from other sailors is always valuable.

Another thing to keep in mind: when you look at cats, don't compare them with monos foot of LOA for foot. Cats are more boat per linear foot because -- obviously -- they are much wider. So a 62 foot cat is not like a 62 foot mono, it's like probably a 90 foot mono. Which kind of underscores what an astonishing bargain that boat is, at less than $2 million.

[MehmetCan]

Originally Posted by Joli

The engines are twin 110 hp so you will burn 4.2 gal per hour.
The platform is big for docking.

I think twin engines are a great comfort for mind -especially for me- for the following reasons :

1. Like most sailors, I use the engines mostly for docking, entering to difficult ports/harbors/bays and for times that it's impossible to sail. The common thing about all these situations is that any failure on the engine can cause catastrophic results and with twin engines, if one of them fails, you still have another one as a backup.

2. Platform is sure big for docking. But just like a tank, you can reverse one side while forwarding the other and turn at the same spot, which I believe almost no single engine monohull can do just as good.

3. My home port is Istanbul and Bosphorous Straight has pretty strong currents with incredible shipping traffic. Two engines is a life saver.

4. You can still use single engine for relaxed motor cruising and reduce the wear and tear by half, since you'll not be focusing on a single engine only.

5. Twice the engine twice the spares is not a 100% true assumption I guess. Sure, you need to carry a whole lot of oil filters and bits and pieces, but some parts are enough if you have only one, since they fail really really rare.

6. If you run out of parts, you can still use the parts of one non-working engine on another until you reach the port.


What do you think guys?

Best Regards;
Mehmet

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by MehmetCan

I think twin engines are a great comfort for mind -especially for me- for the following reasons :

1. Like most sailors, I use the engines mostly for docking, entering to difficult ports/harbors/bays and for times that it's impossible to sail. The common thing about all these situations is that any failure on the engine can cause catastrophic results and with twin engines, if one of them fails, you still have another one as a backup.

2. Platform is sure big for docking. But just like a tank, you can reverse one side while forwarding the other and turn at the same spot, which I believe almost no single engine monohull can do just as good.

3. My home port is Istanbul and Bosphorous Straight has pretty strong currents with incredible shipping traffic. Two engines is a life saver.

4. You can still use single engine for relaxed motor cruising and reduce the wear and tear by half, since you'll not be focusing on a single engine only.

5. Twice the engine twice the spares is not a 100% true assumption I guess. Sure, you need to carry a whole lot of oil filters and bits and pieces, but some parts are enough if you have only one, since they fail really really rare.

6. If you run out of parts, you can still use the parts of one non-working engine on another until you reach the port.


What do you think guys?

Best Regards;
Mehmet

Two engines is all good. You would prefer two engines in a jet, wouldn't you? Same with a long distance cruising boat.

All of your arguments are true. The biggest advantage is probably maneuvering.

I once had an engine fail to start when I was about to enter the Needles Channel -- a notoriously difficult piece of water (a bit like the Bosphorous but with 6 meter tides and ugly weather, and rocks and shoals on either side) -- in a gale. Redundancy here is extremely valuable.

A twin engine boat will of course be more expensive to run. But it's a drop in the bucket in the grander scheme of things (especially when you get to this near-superyacht scale). Cost and the space required to house two engines are the only downsides. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

[MehmetCan]

Originally Posted by Poco Loco III

Dear Mehmet,

I'm looking for a nice jet, can I have your thoughts on the new Dassault Falcon 7x?.. :-)
Sorry i couldn't resist, just wanted to say that the 500 for us is realy already on the max as far as physical strenght is concerned and I'm 1.96m, I don't see how you can run a larger cat whithout sufficient crew.

groet patrick

Dear Groet;

As a matter of fact I have a 2007 7X, with a price tag of only 45M$... (Plus my commission of course!!! )

I agree with dockhead on this size matter. When you pass 50 foot, it's always beyond your reach anyway. I'm 1.92 myself (yes, you're taller!) and even on a 40-45 foot, I rely heavily on the machinery, since one of them fails, I'm going to need super human strength in order to sail the boat anyway.

And that's where twin engines come to stage once again! :P

[MehmetCan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Two engines is all good. You would prefer two engines in a jet, wouldn't you? Same with a long distance cruising boat.

All of your arguments are true. The biggest advantage is probably maneuvering.

I once had an engine fail to start when I was about to enter the Needles Channel -- a notoriously difficult piece of water (a bit like the Bosphorous but with 6 meter tides and ugly weather, and rocks and shoals on either side) -- in a gale. Redundancy here is extremely valuable.

A twin engine boat will of course be more expensive to run. But it's a drop in the bucket in the grander scheme of things (especially when you get to this near-superyacht scale). Cost and the space required to house two engines are the only downsides. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

My point exactly!!!

They say you can still land an aircraft if all the engines are down. And they also say you can still sail into harbor if you're a capable sailor.

Besides "Gimli Glider", there're not that much of a no engine occasions that ended happy for large aircraft. And we're no Slocum's either.


Long story short, if the engines brake, we're screwed! So long for economy once the boat sinks!

[gosstyla]

Originally Posted by MehmetCan

Thanks a lot for sharing your experience as an owner. At this point, I must ask, what would you offer as a 60-70 foot RTW cat alternate for rock solid reliability and comfort?

Best Regards;
Mehmet

Ask Chris White about his Concept 63

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You guys are harsh.

I personally think a Lagoon 620 is a fantastic vessel for a trade winds circumnav. With 60,000 pounds of displacement and 33 feet (!) of beam

33ft beam? Exceeds Panamax. Have to go via the Horn or airlift it with 2 Chinooks.

As for Suez Canal the officials eyes would open wide with delight as their measurements are length x beam and the difference between us and a 50 foot cat was 10 times: Ours was $200 and his was $2,000 so a 62 footer would be aprox $5,000 plus Baksheish.................

So definitly the Horn and Cape...

[gbanker]

Our biggest concern about large yachts has been in regards to crew. One hopes that they will be competent, cheerful, mechanically inclined, great chefs, disappear when not needed, etc, but that only happens in a perfect would. The reality is usually something less.

Will you be comfortable lazing about while the crew works? Who is the real captain - you or the hired skipper? If you hire a couple and one doesn't work out do you fire both? And if you fire them what is the quality of the replacement pool for new crew in St Helena, Tonga, Thailand, etc.? Are you comfortable waiting in port while new crew is interviewed and hired? Can you REALLY relax with "strangers" aboard?

In a perfect world with perfect crew your trip could be a perfect adventure. We decided not to go the "crew" route. Good luck.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by MehmetCan

My point exactly!!!

They say you can still land an aircraft if all the engines are down. And they also say you can still sail into harbor if you're a capable sailor.

Besides "Gimli Glider", there're not that much of a no engine occasions that ended happy for large aircraft. And we're no Slocum's either.


Long story short, if the engines brake, we're screwed! So long for economy once the boat sinks!

Depends on the aircraft, doesn't it. Many sink like rocks with no power.

Sailing into a harbor and getting an anchor down or berthing under sail can be possible depending on the weather, the harbor, the boat and your skill.

I have actually had the experience and it scared the s**t out of me. Getting through a channel under sail with no engine in a F8 and a 5-knot cross current (sweeping you onto an infamous shoal) was not an experience I would ever want to repeat. If I had been less lucky with the wind direction I could have lost the boat.

Anchoring would have been a lot of fun without the engine -- my windlass doesn't work without the engine running (note to self -- rewire it so that it does). I can free-fall the anchor but hauling it in (as in, for example, to reanchor) can be done only by pulling the 12mm chain (33 kilos per 10 meters) up by hand. In the event I preferred to take a tow.

If you are being swept onto rocks or a shoal by a current and you have no wind and your engine is out, then no amount of skill can help you. You are scr***d.

As an inveterate mono guy, cats are not so much to my taste (although my mouth waters at that Lagoon 62), but the twin engines are a HUGE advantage.


Concerning crew -- that's up to you of course. It's hard work crossing an ocean on any sailboat with only one or two sailors on board. In any case, for such a long distance, you will much prefer having three or four sailors (I'm not counting non-sailing guests even though they may help from time to time). If two of them are professionals who are getting paid for it, so what? This is a big headache for some people; it doesn't bother me, personally. I couldn't run my household without paid help; I wouldn't hesitate to use paid help on my boat if I were doing a circumnavigation.

[Joli]

It looks like there will be two practical problems:

1) The physical size of the boat. Even with twin engines it is going to take some learning especially when you consider the height of the profile and rig. With a side tie and a cross breeze the load will be pretty enormous. Does an engine 33 feet away from the dock have the oomph to pull the bow out when the breeze is on? I don't know but can say our bow thruster is good till about 12 then we need to back against a spring to pop the bow out. Over 25 or so we need to be able to warp the boat around the pier end and back off to get free. Can you learn a system that would work for you? Sure, but the crunches inthe learnign curve could be pricy.

2) The height of the gooseneck to me is more worrisome. Looking at the photos it appears to be at least 10 foot off the cabin top and maybe 15 to 20 foot off the water. The main at 1500 sq ft will weigh a minimum of 500#s and will require roller bearing cars to insure the battens don't hinge. To put it away will require someone going up and walking the boom. If there is a problem while sailing someone is going to be up there in a pretty vulnerable position trying to clear things up.

Are you planning on having crew?

Good luck though,

Joli

[isamar]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

33ft beam? Exceeds Panamax. Have to go via the Horn or airlift it with 2 Chinook

Hi MarkJ,
Panama is getting a little narrow lately
It used to be 33 meters wide last time I cheked.
Ciao.
Sergio

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Joli

It looks like there will be two practical problems:

1) . . .

2) The height of the gooseneck to me is more worrisome. Looking at the photos it appears to be at least 10 foot off the cabin top and maybe 15 to 20 foot off the water. The main at 1500 sq ft will weigh a minimum of 500#s and will require roller bearing cars to insure the battens don't hinge. To put it away will require someone going up and walking the boom. If there is a problem while sailing someone is going to be up there in a pretty vulnerable position trying to clear things up.

I spent a couple of weeks on a Swan 90 which had similar size rig, sails, and a boom that high. My own mainsail is not that much smaller, maybe half the size, so not an order of magnitude. It's in-mast furling, however, so it lives inside the mast and we don't manhandle it much except to take it down once a year for valeting.

We were three sailors on the Swan and really none of the sailing was any problem even though we had decent strong winds. Three of us was plenty. The sails were laminate racing types and the main was fully battened on roller cars. Flaking it took two of us; one to operate the halyard (on the wonderful hydraulic winch) and the other to stand on the boom and flake.

I really don't think handling a boat the size of the Lagoon 62 is going to be hard. It will be positively lovely at sea where the motion and stability will be totally unlike a smaller boat, and I'm not even going to start talking about the space. It may be intimidating in close quarters but you will just handle it like a superyacht, keeping it mostly at anchor and a little further away from shore. One professional crewman (who will kindly keep anchor watch when you're exploring shoreside) will be enough.

[Garold]

Well MehmetCan, it looks like everyone has a different view. This is compounded by the fact that none of us has any direct experience of sailing a 620. But maybe you could fill us all in if you do.

But, whilst I was beavering away trying to earn a meagre living today, your post prompted me to wonder what I would do if I had your conundrum (i.e. What boat for RTW if the budget were large).

And I think that a large cat would have to be a consideration. The comfort, the easy trade wind sailing, relatively shallow draft, steady platform at anchor, etc etc. But how big is too big? When does the size become a bit of liability. I had an Audi Q7 a couple of years ago, and in spite of the fact that I thought it was an awesome bit of kit, it just didn't function properly on British roads and in towns. I am now much happier with a mid size car. Maybe on those occassions that you do want to berth somewhere, it will be limiting. So maybe the newer (smaller) Lagoon models may be worth looking at. And you would probably be fine without crew then too.

But the boat motion of the 620 at sea should very smooth. Something that those of us with smaller cats dream of!

However, Lagoon are busting into Sunreef territory with the 620, and so you may like to look at them too.

As for manoevering, I think that bow thrusters would be a real comfort because you would have a large vessel and the spaces in normal yacht harbours are not designed for the 620's dimensions. And so any aid to pin point accurate berthing would be handy. But if you do go for thrusters, get big ones. I stood close to, and downwind from, a 620 a few weeks ago and it just blocked out the wind entirely. Probably a bit tricky to get off the dock sometimes.

Cheers

Garold

[MehmetCan]

Dear Garold;

Your Q7 example reminded me the time when Jeremy Clarkson -the biggest jerk ever lived whom I hate and love at the same time!!!- tried to drive a H1 Hummer in the city.

I agree with all the comments about the size, if you're planning to use such vessel around the city, spend most time at the marina and so on, it's extremely (and I do mean extremely) bulky and useless. However, if we're talking about a 15-20 day ocean passage with a shoal shore at the end, a big cat seems to be a great alternate.

As for Swan 90, it's the holy grail for my sailing fetish, can't think of a boat that I want more, maybe Oyster 885, but it really does not matter that much.

For sail handling, I think it's 100% lunacy if you take such rigging without a furling main and genoa -especially if you're talking about a cruiser. For the winches, the boat has Harkens as far as I know (or might be Lewmar -but nothing else), so it's just as high quality as the ones that you can find on an Oyster or a Swan. And if they broke, even 10 people won't be enough to tame the beast during a storm.

At the moment, it's just a mind game but it's a good idea -that's for sure...

Let's be honest, it's a floating island; the question is; can a man rule that island only himself and maybe the help of his family?

P.S. : Seriously, the Panama Canal should really have shrunk! I've heard that they're going to accept only opti's starting next year! (tounge in cheek!)