Rudder Failures

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

.......

Let's look at my boat. There is a 1989 Hunter 40 on Yachtworld that has just sold with an asking price of $84,900. I honestly don't know what the retail price for this boat was in 1989, but if you use a standard inflation calculator with today's retail price of Hunter's current 40 at $240K - you get around $125K retail back then.

So, from $125K purchase price to $84K sales price today. On the face of it, that's, what, a roughly 32% depreciation over 25 years? Sounds about right. Of course, if you factor inflation back in, you are actually making a tidy profit!
.....

That is some astounding math. Buy a boat in 1989 for $125k in '89 dollars. Sell it in 2014 for $84k in 2014 dollars and end up with a 32% profit after inflation. Huh?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Some may very well be easier to sail but not all of them. I sailed a production boat with the real wide stern a few years ago and it was anything but easy in larger seas. It wanted to turn every time it rolled and you had to be real careful on the helm because the rudder would stall quite easily. In flat water it was easy peasy but going down wind in bigger seas not so much.

I had already explained that this type of hull reefers not only to a beamy boat with a somewhat wide stern but to a particular design (see post and photos regarding the Beneteau 46 and 45). This type of hull is used already for some years on small production fast cruisers but started only to be used on mass production cruising boats a couple of years ago. This hull design is always associated to a two rudder set up (it cannot work well with a single rudder).

You say the boat stalled quite easily, that had only one rudder and that was some years ago. I bet that was not this type of hull (that is characterized to be hugely stable downwind and have a huge grip on the rudders): What was the boat?

[robert sailor]

It was a while ago and I'm not sure of the exact model but it was a Benni and yes it was single rudder.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul L

That is some astounding math. Buy a boat in 1989 for $125k in '89 dollars. Sell it in 2014 for $84k in 2014 dollars and end up with a 32% profit after inflation. Huh?

No silly. According to my handy-dandy iPhone calculator (which could very well be wrong - the battery is low), you have a straight-up ~32% depreciation over that 25 years (from $125K to $84K) - a "loss" of ~$41K.

Now start entering those numbers into an inflation calculator and things get CRAZY, man!

The point is - contrary to the earlier assertion, that Hunter is not doing too bad holding its value.

[Cheechako]

Why do I have the feeling some will defend cheap construction no matter what?

It's really simple, take two keels of identical shape, one lead and one steel. The boat with the lead one will have far better stability. Now use lead and reshape the keel for better hydrodynamics, lower Cg, less weight with the same stability as the steel and the boat is faster!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Why do I have the feeling some will defend cheap construction no matter what?

Maybe because some will blindly attack it no matter what. There is definitely a place for less expensive construction. You have it all around you....and you're fine.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, that makes more sense now.

But I still don't think I could quite agree with it. Cruising boats don't have the razor sharp, high aspect foils with lead torpedoes you see on some racing boats -- they have flattened bulbs on more or less normal fin keels.
Nor do they use steel at all in their keels -- they use cast iron, sometimes even scrap encapsulated in fiberglass.
...

Yes you are right about cast iron on production boats even if the best, as I said is steel and lead. Even so cast iron allows for a much narrower foil as you can see on the pictures. Regarding cruising boats not having this type of keel but " flattened bulbs on more or less normal fin keels", you are talking about older designs I am talking about the new ones. Many use them already:

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

No silly. According to my handy-dandy iPhone calculator (which could very well be wrong - the battery is low), you have a straight-up ~32% depreciation over that 25 years (from $125K to $84K) - a "loss" of ~$41K.

Now start entering those numbers into an inflation calculator and things get CRAZY, man!

The point is - contrary to the earlier assertion, that Hunter is not doing too bad holding its value.

You've just done the inflation backward -- innocent mistake!

$125k in 1989 dollars is $240k today. So the depreciation is $154k or 64%.


But I don't think depreciation is a meaningful term much for boats anyway. Boats are like helicopters, not like cars. A hunk of fiberglass holding together a multitude of limited life systems, which constantly need repairing and upgrading and replacing. If your boat is well taken care of, there's little left of what was delivered in 1989, other than the nearly worthless hull, and what is left will be more or less timed out, and the cost of all of that is not reflected in the depreciation calculation.

The point is that all boats -- production or not, cheap or expensive -- are holes in the water you pour money into. The idea of "holding its value" is ridiculous when applied to any boat, production or not.

I doubt that cheap production boats "depreciate" any more than expensive ones do. Nor do I see any evidence that their useful life is any less.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

No silly. According to my handy-dandy iPhone calculator (which could very well be wrong - the battery is low), you have a straight-up ~32% depreciation over that 25 years (from $125K to $84K) - a "loss" of ~$41K.

Now start entering those numbers into an inflation calculator and things get CRAZY, man!

The point is - contrary to the earlier assertion, that Hunter is not doing too bad holding its value.

Your statement

Of course, if you factor inflation back in, you are actually making a tidy profit!

threw me.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You've just done the inflation backward -- innocent mistake!

$125k in 1989 dollars is $240k today. So the depreciation is $154k or 64%.

I doubt that cheap production boats "depreciate" any more than expensive ones do. Nor do I see any evidence that their useful life is any less.

That's what I meant by the "straight-up depreciation" number of 32% (not factoring in inflation). You pay $125K you get back $84K 25 years later. Not bad for a boat.

In the end, I agree with your last statement. Run similar numbers on higher-end boats. Scary.

[smackdaddy]

Here's an honest question for the BWC...

Why is a high-end brand like Swan not even bothering with boats under 53' anymore? Same with Hylas at 46'?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

That's what I meant by the "straight-up depreciation" number of 32% (not factoring in inflation). You pay $125K you get back $84K 25 years later. Not bad for a boat.

I wouldn't say it's "not bad" -- when you add in the costs over 25 years, it's hideous. Compare that to $125K put into the stock market or into real estate in 1989. I put about $35k of equity into two houses in the U.S. in 1987 and 1988, respectively. I now have over half a million of equity in them. A little different proposition.

However, it is no more hideous than expensive boats, and indeed less hideous, because the sums involved are less.

The point is that there is no such thing as "investment performance" or "financial performance" where boats are concerned. Boats are pure consumption, and about as lavish an article of consumption as you can imagine, even an inexpensive cruising boat. No one should ever buy one, thinking about the resale value. The resale value will, at best, pay back your last few years of cost. The capital is gone the day you buy the boat. Which is why I really don't like the idea of buying a boat with a loan. If you can't buy it in the first place, how will you ever afford to operate and maintain it?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Why do I have the feeling some will defend cheap construction no matter what?

I would never defend cheap construction. But efficient construction isn't the same as cheap.

But I will defend that just because a boat is a "production" model of the B/C/H companies doesn't make it cheap construction! Just some facts of my 2001 model:

1 - solid fiberglass below the waterline
2 - balsa cored above the waterline
3 - all fiberglass sheets CNC cut to design and hand rolled
4 - deck has aluminum backing plates at all penetrations
5 - deck/hull flanged and assembled with 5200 and through bolted
6 - furniture CNC cut and assembled on a mold for fit
7 - interior assembly then bonded to the hull and the bulkheads fiberglassed to the hull. Even the berth framing is glassed to the hull.
8 - lead keel bolted to a reinforced grid with 7 1" and 1 3/4" 316SS bolts with large backing plates
9 - Kevlar in the hull from the bow to the keel sump

Just what is "cheap" in this construction???

Far as value goes; I bought my 2001 model 4 years ago for $115k. As a percentage of original base price that is pretty good! Today 4 years later my model is listing for more than what I paid.

And 13 years after the boat was built there has been NO issues with any of the manufacturer built items or any of the systems far as the installation. This isn't some internet forum expertize smoke and mirrors, these are personal facts!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I wouldn't say it's "not bad" -- when you add in the costs over 25 years, it's hideous. Compare that to $125K put into the stock market or into real estate in 1989. I put about $35k of equity into two houses in the U.S. in 1987 and 1988, respectively. I now have over half a million of equity in them. A little different proposition.

However, it is no more hideous than expensive boats, and indeed less hideous, because the sums involved are less.

The point is that there is no such thing as "investment performance" or "financial performance" where boats are concerned. Boats are pure consumption, and about as lavish an article of consumption as you can imagine, even an inexpensive cruising boat. No one should ever buy one, thinking about the resale value. The resale value will, at best, pay back your last few years of cost. The capital is gone the day you buy the boat. Which is why I really don't like the idea of buying a boat with a loan. If you can't buy it in the first place, how will you ever afford to operate and maintain it?

Dude - I never said it was a good investment. I said it held its value pretty well...for a boat. So let's not get carried away here.

Your point here is right on:

However, it is no more hideous than expensive boats, and indeed less hideous, because the sums involved are less.

This is exactly what I was pointing out, and exactly the opposite of robertsailor's argument that Hunters suck at holding their value.

So I think we're in violent agreement.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Here's an honest question for the BWC...

Why is a high-end brand like Swan not even bothering with boats under 53' anymore? Same with Hylas at 46'?

Nautor dont have demand for smaller sizes i guess, they are marketing the big boys really well, but this can change from one year to the other , molds are a huge investment , without demand the yard loose money...