The Yard Guys

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by minaret

Want a job?


40' boat prices are more like 5k for rigging, 5 for electronics, 20k for a full suit of quality offshore worthy new sails, 5 for the AP, and 15k minimum for a quality paint job.

That's 50k foot in the door price. If you can really do it for 35, tell me how! And remember, you must include a fair wage for your time.

I think I explained in my prev. post which you may have missed. I do it by not going to the yard but by dealing directly with the actual people doing the work. And yes, you quoted average prices of which I am perfectly aware. But I would never for example start with brand new set of sails for $20K but rather would get a decent inventory of used ones for $5-10K. Same with all other stuff except rigging and paint of course. So your $50K becomes easily $30-35K. And my boat is 36' so that too helps a little.

I installed a workhorse old Nielssen windlass, having checked it out and found it to be in perfect condition inside, for about $1000 including shoring up the deck underneath with g-10. Did a stern arch for $150parts plus $150 labor. Hard top for under $1,000 overall. Now just these three items would have cost me new how many thousands at any boatyard? And I think my old Nielssen is way sturdier if not prettier than even the newish Maxwell models of same design which go for $3K plus installation.

And no, I am not looking to win beauty pageants with my boat or have neighbors oooh and aaah over her but rather to be comfortable and safe. So my priorities are along those lines.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I think I explained in my prev. post which you may have missed. I do it by not going to the yard but by dealing directly with the actual people doing the work. And yes, you quoted average prices of which I am perfectly aware. But I would never for example start with brand new set of sails for $20K but rather would get a decent inventory of used ones for $5-10K. Same with all other stuff except rigging and paint of course. So your $50K becomes easily $30-35K. And my boat is 36' so that too helps a little.

Not wanting to pick nits here, but in fact your original claim was:

Well some thing on your list, structural, have to be there even if the boat is much discounted. Other things, yes have to be installed, and I budgeted for them when buying my boat. But no way are they worth $100-150K price difference. Heck, I can install BRAND NEW rigging, electronics, sails, autopilot and awlgrip her all for about $30-35K give or take. And take the saved $70-100K to the bank (if I had as much to take to the bank) as a cruising kitty.

Once you start introducing second hand parts into the equation, the bottom line becomes dependent upon the sort of bargains that come your way... not a dependable budget predictor.

In general I agree that with the application of lots of time, skill and effort, one can materially reduce the cost of going cruising. However, I think your figures are a bit stretched for a general guideline for newbies.

Jim

[transmitterdan]

It is "dangerous" to suggest to a newbie that they can buy a boat with "sound foundation" and then DIY themselves into a capable and comfortable circumnavigator for less $ than they can buy something already in that state. I don't care who's uncle has a marine parts wholesale business, or what used stuff you can find at a GAM. It ain't possible if you are really honest with yourself. It always costs more to put a new "insert thing here" into a boat than to buy a used boat with that thing already properly installed.

I don't begrudge anyone the satisfaction from doing an upgrade yourself. Heck, I like doing little electronic jobs 'cause it gets my mind off other things. But if you are doing it to save $ you are kidding yourself. Minaret is right, any truly honest and reputable yard will always be able to do it right for about the same price you can do it yourself. More often than not they can do it for less.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by minaret

40' boat prices are more like 5k for rigging, 5 for electronics, 20k for a full suit of quality offshore worthy new sails, 5 for the AP, and 15k minimum for a quality paint job.

I think even those prices are low for a 40' boat. Even DIY I doubt I can replace my standing and running rigging for $5K. I know for sure I can't replace the electronics for $5K. Same for the AP.

But paint job I can probably get done for less than $15K. Not going to worry about it because my paint is in pretty good shape (except for the whale stripe). Not going to redo that until I quit rubbing docks. Looks like I'll never get it done at this rate.

[neilpride]

5000 for the rigging is the minimun for a doublé spreader rig, doublé backstay , inner forestay furler, and surprises you always found in between rise the bill to more than 5000...Just to make a example, the crossbeam turnbuckle in some catamarans cost 1500 u$ from 45 to 50 ft...

[minaret]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think even those prices are low for a 40' boat. Even DIY I doubt I can replace my standing and running rigging for $5K. I know for sure I can't replace the electronics for $5K. Same for the AP.

But paint job I can probably get done for less than $15K. Not going to worry about it because my paint is in pretty good shape (except for the whale stripe). Not going to redo that until I quit rubbing docks. Looks like I'll never get it done at this rate.

Yes, I didn't want to invite ridicule with ACTUAL prices!


When I say 15k at least for paint, I mean 20, but I also mean topsides and decks. Usual cost for decks is at least 2-3 times the cost of a hull topsides paint job. This would usually involve things like pulling and re bedding some hardware or maybe all, nonskid, two tone, stripes, stainless polish, etc etc.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

We all know that Yachtworld pricing is not what you end up paying, so unless you factored that in to your thoughts, one would search at a considerable higher figure.

Of course, the same search parameters on Sailboatlistings.com bring you entirely different results. Heck, you can buy an Oyster, if you can live with the 8' draft. And a nice looking Southern Cross. Or an Island Packet. A Bruce Roberts, including life raft (just in case you really want to go into real bluewater). A Hunter Cherubini, highly regarded.

Okay, let's work through this list of yours. Are you really recommending this 31 y.o. Oyster as a cruising boat to a newb with a $70K budget - simply because it's "an Oyster"?

nice racing boat. cruised it trinidad. having a cold beer on it right now in grenada. probably will leave it in Trinidad uless someone in FL wants to buy it from me. will need new sails. good bottom paint. has 8 pipe berths and big v berth. put in a roller furler to make it easier to cruise. kitchen. little freezer that works but needs some work. write for more info.

You're promoting a brand name to a new buyer with absolutely no knowledge of the actual boat.

This is what I mean by dangerous advice.

And why on earth would someone sink almost $60K into a 33 y.o. Southern Cross that is seriously cramped and outdated below?



What Island Packet?

And are you really recommending a Bruce Roberts? I see why the life raft is featured.

Again - NONE of these hold a candle to far newer production boats for cruising. None.

Originally Posted by avb3

We all know that Yachtworld pricing is not what you I'm not sure why you assume 'old' = 'tired'. When one of the 'new' charter boats gets to be 5 years old, it has been used. When it gets 10, one better start thinking new rigging, new sails, and maybe chainplates. A well maintained older boat is no worse than that, and arguably, has better 'bones'.

Charter boats are not the only production boats. And you don't sail old "bones" - you fix them. For example, are you saying that you wouldn't have to do these things for the Oyster and/or Southern Cross you're pointing newbs to?

Also, even if you do have to spend the money are new rigging, new sails, and even chainplates on a newer production boat - you now have a newer, better boat.

So, again, this is typical of the advice often given on forums. And it's wrong.

Originally Posted by avb3

Of course many of the newer designs have advantages. Speed is probably one of them, and yes, they sure look pretty. Yup, they can go into bluewater situations. But do you really think that most of the production boats built today will have the longevity and reputation that many of those older boats, including the Hunter Cherubinins, have? I'd lay odds the answer is no. Maybe not your answer, but the answer most will give.

Exactly. Production boats are fine for bluewater cruising. As for "longevity" - maybe not. But you're definitely rolling HUGE dice buying that old Southern Cross or racing Oyster and thinking it's as good a boat as a newer production boat. Reputation? I think it's been well-established that the "reputation" of these old boats has little relevance to what you're actually spending your money on. In fact - you're paying a premium for "reputation" when you could spend that money instead on safely cruising around.

So, yes, different results on SBL. But same result.

[smackdaddy]

So, what I see from this group is that you "can't buy" an "off-shore" boat for "serious weather" (whatever the hell that means) for much less than $150K (likely more). Then we jump from "cruising" straight to "circumnavigations".

Then, an actual yard guy makes the point that even if you buy one of avb's recommended Oysters or Southern Cross, you're going to spend TONS of money fixing it up (figuring in your own hours as part of the cost instead of assuming your own work is "free"). So we're now up to another $50K for the prepping of this 40' boat.

If you bought that boat recommended by Tdan - you are now in, easily, for $200K - $250K for an old, out-of-production boat. And this is good how?

You guys are saying that you shouldn't be offshore unless you've paid $200K+? Please. That is utterly ridiculous.

At this price point, we are now into BRAND NEW, WARRANTIED production boats - that are built for off-shore cruising in "serious weather".

And if you stick with used boats - you can easily find a well-taken-care-of, much newer production boat that is ALSO built for off-shore cruising in "serious weather" - for FAR less than what you guys are promoting.

You really have to completely buy into brand hype to be willing to think what you guys are promoting is a better value for cruising.

[avb3]

Smackdaddy, that Hunter Cherubini 37' would not even come close to 70K all done up. And you know what great reputations those Hunters have. In fact, one of our delivery skippers on this board used to own one, and he did sail it across the Atlantic. He speaks quite highly of them.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Smackdaddy, that Hunter Cherubini 37' would not even come close to 70K all done up. And you know what great reputations those Hunters have. In fact, one of our delivery skippers on this board used to own one, and he did sail it across the Atlantic. He speaks quite highly of them.

When I started gravitating toward production boats in my search, I started with the Cherubinis and the Idylles (for Beneteau). I did this based on the advice similar to yours above. In other words, "if you're going to insist on a production boat, at least go with the older ones that are heavily built and have a better 'bluewater' reputation".

After looking at few of these boats, I just didn't see the logic in having something slow and cramped just because they are "built more heavily". There's nothing wrong with them per se - but they didn't appeal to me at all.

I congratulate your friend who crossed the Atlantic, but there are newer, faster, much more comfortable production boats than the Cherubini criss-crossing that same ocean as we speak. There are even a few, like MarkJ's Bene, that have very safely circled the earth. Why would I insist on something older and slower?

[neilpride]

Seriously recommended, this is the best dufour ever !! Center cockpit with a triple spreader powerful rig and a really solid construction, there is not many for sale, its a short edition made by Dufour , prices around 150.000 , 200.000 ... easy for a couple, fast, seaworthy, and solid...

Redirect Notice

Or this one, solid and well made it, love those old centurions,
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1998...ic-Sea/Germany

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

When I started gravitating toward production boats in my search, I started with the Cherubinis and the Idylles (for Beneteau). I did this based on the advice similar to yours above. In other words, "if you're going to insist on a production boat, at least go with the older ones that are heavily built and have a better 'bluewater' reputation".

After looking at few of these boats, I just didn't see the logic in having something slow and cramped just because they are "built more heavily". There's nothing wrong with them per se - but they didn't appeal to me at all.

I congratulate your friend who crossed the Atlantic, but there are newer, faster, much more comfortable production boats than the Cherubini criss-crossing that same ocean as we speak. There are even a few, like MarkJ's Bene, that have very safely circled the earth. Why would I insist on something older and slower?

I will readily concur that many of the newer designed boats are faster than the old stalwarts. If that is important to you, and it seems it is, then of course a more traditional keel design won't work.

I think you need to be a bit careful on how you view comfort. If your talking about creature comfort, many of the newer boats specialize in that. Not many will argue that.

However, if one is talking about sailing comfort, now it is an entirely different discussion.

Compare the Ted Brewer well recognized Comfort Ratio (CR) of what I believe is your boat to the Cherubini. The higher the number, the better.

• Hunter Cherubini = CR 54
• Hunter 40 = CR 43

So, if your talking comfort of sailing in open water, the Cherubini is by far the more comfortable.

Although it is just an indicater, the capsize ratio on the Cherubini is far better than on Hunter 40:

• Hunter Cherubini = 1.81
• Hunter 40 = 2.07

Generally it is considered the a boat with more than a 2.0 capsize ratio is not "bluewater".

And then we look at hull speed, which is so close it hardly matters.

• Hull speed Hunter Cherubini = 7.34
• Hull speed Hunter 40 = 7.64

So, to sum it up, the "older and slower" Hunter Cherubini is older (somewhat), is slower (not enough to really count) but has a much more comfortable sea motion than the Hunter 40, and is arguably more stable.

It does lack in the furniture department, utilizing that old fashioned wood stuff as opposed to perhaps laminates, fixed on liners.

Now, you might be interested in a discussion with Hunter documented here:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

This is what they say about their interiors. Note, they are not marketing to those that want to sail oceans, and they know it:

The interior layouts are designed primarily for families that do not do much extended offshore cruising other than, week ending, a hop to the Bahamas, out to Catalina, or down to the VI. Mostly the folks buying new boats today are not in the 3% or less category that will ever cross an ocean. Boat buyers 25-30 years ago were a somewhat different breed, they bought the boat from the outside in and the interior space and livability were of secondary concern. That is not true today, customers (want, desire) demand roomy comfortable interiors. Owners want a big comfortable center line or athwartship berth that they can lounge around in at anchor and at the dock get a good nap, sleep at night, or entertain friends and family. That's maybe not what you want and you're correct; there are few if any good sea berths in these configurations. And the fact is, that dealers know all this and aren't going to take an interior designed for that 3% or less crowd. They making a living selling boats (not paying the floor plan company). So when you go through a boat show or visit the dealer or go aboard Mr. and Mrs. X's boat in your marina the interior you're most likely to see is the one just described.

Obviously you are part of the 97% Hunter was targeting. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[neilpride]

I link the Comfort Ratio with safety...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

I will readily concur that many of the newer designed boats are faster than the old stalwarts. If that is important to you, and it seems it is, then of course a more traditional keel design won't work.

I think you need to be a bit careful on how you view comfort. If your talking about creature comfort, many of the newer boats specialize in that. Not many will argue that.

However, if one is talking about sailing comfort, now it is an entirely different discussion.

Compare the Ted Brewer well recognized Comfort Ratio (CR) of what I believe is your boat to the Cherubini. The higher the number, the better.

• Hunter Cherubini = CR 54
• Hunter 40 = CR 43

So, if your talking comfort of sailing in open water, the Cherubini is by far the more comfortable.

"By far". Please.

Look, let's get real, comfort means being BOTH comfortable at sea AND at anchor. Furthermore, you have a good deal of control over comfort at sea. In other words, you don't HAVE to aggressively pound into big waves.

So if you're buying your boat purely around the idea of being slightly more "comfortable" while needlessly pounding into big waves, while cowering in a cramped, dark cabin at sea AND at anchor, I'd say you're seriously doing this whole cruising thing wrong. But do it however you need to, dude.

Even so, let's look at your numbers. Here's an exhaustive list on this very forum that has quite different numbers than what you're listing - but...

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...io-114288.html

You'll see the following:

Hunter 37, Motion Comfort=23 (maybe not the Cherubini, I don't know)
Hunter 40, Motion Comfort=24.97

Maybe this guy has it wrong. Or maybe you do. Who knows?

But you'll also notice Bristols and Cape Dorys are very close to my H40 ratio on this list. So, I'm comfortable.

Originally Posted by avb3

Although it is just an indicater, the capsize ratio on the Cherubini is far better than on Hunter 40:

• Hunter Cherubini = 1.81
• Hunter 40 = 2.07

Generally it is considered the a boat with more than a 2.0 capsize ratio is not "bluewater".

The CR for my Hunter 40 is actually 2.01. And if that makes you nervous - then no, you definitely shouldn't sail one off-shore.

Me? I'm not scared.

Look, we've already had this "ratio" conversation in the other thread - and you were wrong there too:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1678475

These ratios are geared toward the older boats - not the newer boats. I don't put much stock in them.

Originally Posted by avb3

And then we look at hull speed, which is so close it hardly matters.

• Hull speed Hunter Cherubini = 7.34
• Hull speed Hunter 40 = 7.64

So, to sum it up, the "older and slower" Hunter Cherubini is older (somewhat), is slower (not enough to really count) but has a much more comfortable sea motion than the Hunter 40, and is arguably more stable.

This is where you unequivocally show that you don't understand speed. There is hull speed, and there is actually getting to and maintaining hull speed in various conditions.

The Cherubini 37 seems to have a PHRF of 132. My 40 has a PHRF of 96. If you're in that Cherubini - you'll be days and days behind me in "serious conditions" while I'm drinking booze at anchor in my comfy salon. But, at least you'll feel safe out there. So you got that going for you.

Originally Posted by avb3

It does lack in the furniture department, utilizing that old fashioned wood stuff as opposed to perhaps laminates, fixed on liners.

Now, you might be interested in a discussion with Hunter documented here:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

This is what they say about their interiors. Note, they are not marketing to those that want to sail oceans, and they know it:

The interior layouts are designed primarily for families that do not do much extended offshore cruising other than, week ending, a hop to the Bahamas, out to Catalina, or down to the VI. Mostly the folks buying new boats today are not in the 3% or less category that will ever cross an ocean. Boat buyers 25-30 years ago were a somewhat different breed, they bought the boat from the outside in and the interior space and livability were of secondary concern. That is not true today, customers (want, desire) demand roomy comfortable interiors. Owners want a big comfortable center line or athwartship berth that they can lounge around in at anchor and at the dock get a good nap, sleep at night, or entertain friends and family. That's maybe not what you want and you're correct; there are few if any good sea berths in these configurations. And the fact is, that dealers know all this and aren't going to take an interior designed for that 3% or less crowd. They making a living selling boats (not paying the floor plan company). So when you go through a boat show or visit the dealer or go aboard Mr. and Mrs. X's boat in your marina the interior you're most likely to see is the one just describe

Obviously you are part of the 97% Hunter was targeting. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Yeah, I currently have no desire to cross oceans. We'll just be cruising the Carib the next few years. I might change my mind, though. And I would be very comfortable doing so in my boat.

Actually, I'd very much like you to specifically point out how my H40's interior will be insufficient for being off-shore. That should be entertaining.

Again, use all these numbers to make yourself feel better if you wish. The problem with them is the fact that there are thousands of these newer boats doing exactly what you (and your numbers) say they shouldn't be able to do. I don't really know how you reconcile that in your own brain. But it's got to be some impressive gymnastics.

[Island Time O25]

Hunter 40 shows Motion Comfort of 24.97 at SailCalc. Not even close to 42. My own 36' boat shows MC 31.63. It better be at 17,000lbs on a 36footer.

Capzise ration for Hunter 40 is 2.05. For my boat 1.79.

And Hunter 40 is actually only 38.5ft. So I'd say one is overpaying for basically a sales gimmick.