"Good Enough" vs "The Best"

[Idaho]

I see many threads with the title, "What is the best ...?"

I get it. Many people are just not happy unless they know they are getting "the best" of whatever it is they want. Maybe that is important to them, but is "good enough" really sufficient for most applications?

Good enough (GE) almost always costs less to buy than the best (TB). Which, for most people, means they can afford to buy more of what they need on the boat. Maybe GE won't last as long, but will it last for long enough?

So what boat systems really should be TB, and not GE? Why is that system so essential or critical that GE should not be considered as a viable alternative?

I have seen a sign in many auto junkyards, "All cars run on used parts." Just put here as a reminder that Best-itis is not always better than GoodEnoughus.

[goboatingnow]

Remember perfect is the enemy of good

Most things on a boat “are good enough “. Few people can afford “ the best of everything “ and good luck if they can

Everything is a compromise as a result. The whole boat is one cause it’s “ built to a price “

For me it’s a trade off. How long will it last for the money. How long will I have the boat for. How much cash will it cost , what specific benefits will it bring or will a better one bring.

There are no sacred cows

[thomm225]

It also gets complicated when you start talking "best."

Like chartplotters for instance.

Some want name brands like Garmin, Simrad etc while others of us would rather have a top notch Laptop and build our own chartplotter using OpenCPN and a GPS Puck. (then bring in AIS via NMEA 0183 or 2000)

The cost is much lower also.

The same goes for anchors but in a different way.

Best in some areas is average in others.

[denverd0n]

What systems should be TB versus what systems can be GE is always a very personal matter. It depends on how you intend to use the boat, where you are going to be going, and what your priorities of life are.


I think you just need to go with your gut when making these decisions.


Good luck.

[Dockhead]

The choice isn't binary between "good enough", and "best".

The third choice is "optimal".

This is a classical design question. The right solution is always a compromise between different values, including cost, maintenance, complexity, useful life, as well as performance. The "optimal" solution is the one which fulfills these always competing values, in the way which best serves the interests of the owner according to his own use case and pocketbook. The "best" is rarely "optimal"; nor is just anything which fulfills the low threshhold of "good enough".

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The choice isn't binary between "good enough", and "best".

The third choice is "optimal".

This is a classical design question. The right solution is always a compromise between different values, including cost, maintenance, complexity, useful life, as well as performance. The "optimal" solution is the one which fulfills these always competing values, in the way which best serves the interests of the owner according to his own use case and pocketbook. The "best" is rarely "optimal"; nor is just anything which fulfills the low threshhold of "good enough".

Agreed. And "optimal" takes into account that for many things, there's a point where you can still get a "better" one, but you won't gain any advantage from it.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The choice isn't binary between "good enough", and "best".
The third choice is "optimal".
This is a classical design question. The right solution is always a compromise between different values, including cost The "best" is rarely "optimal"; nor is just anything which fulfills the low threshhold of "good enough".

I think that pretty well nails it.
Many years ago, a successful businessman gave me some sage advice, to wit.
Paraphrasing, "When you buy the cheapest, you'll rarely be satisfied, and when you buy the most expensive, you'll generally pay more than it's worth, the best value per dollar is in the middle".
I'm sure that most of us could find products in which we might disagree with that statement, but overall, I find it a useful guideline.

[Donnybrook]

Originally Posted by Idaho

I see many threads with the title, "What is the best ...?"

I get it. Many people are just not happy unless they know they are getting "the best" of whatever it is they want. Maybe that is important to them, but is "good enough" really sufficient for most applications?

The question should be phrased "What is the best <so and so> for my intended use, which is.... and my accepted risk which is..."

The best for durability and reliability may not be the best for performance (think overbuilt cruising components vs light-weight racing components). The best for quantity of features may be worthless if you don't need the features or if there's a steep learning curve for basic functionality. Anything related to safety must be reliable and work as specified. Everything else is a design compromise.

As I gain experience with anything, determining what's "the best" for me is more important than accepting "the best" from someone else
.

[MicHughV]

I think the term " optimal" as defined and posted by Dockhead pretty much sums it up.

[N Coast Murray]

When we bought our boat (a 1982 Sundowner Tug) we decided not to update anything for one year, except for a larger anchor/rode, a new radio, and Navionics on an iPad.

Ten years later, we're still using the radar and depth sounder that came with the boat and the same iPad and 'legacy' Navionics package.

The best in 1980's technology has been good enough for us and our coastal cruising on the north coast of BC, Canada.

[ItDepends]

One consideration should be the consequences of failure. If I am 1000 miles offshore in a force 7 blow and the light bulb in the saloon goes out… I’m not exactly worried.

Under those conditions if a thruhull fails, I’m in a world of hurt. Even if it was “the best value.”

The sailor who never leaves Chesapeake Bay can take risks with “value” gear that someone who spends months away from supplies in remote anchorages and on blue water passages can not.

[SVTatia]

100% agree with Dockhead, he nailed it.

Also, how is "the best" defined? By who? By which consistent standards?

To me the best does not exist, it is hearsay, optimal does.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by ItDepends

One consideration should be the consequences of failure. If I am 1000 miles offshore in a force 7 blow and the light bulb in the saloon goes out… I’m not exactly worried.

Under those conditions if a thruhull fails, I’m in a world of hurt. Even if it was “the best value.”

The sailor who never leaves Chesapeake Bay can take risks with “value” gear that someone who spends months away from supplies in remote anchorages and on blue water passages can not.

Did you have to mention through hulls they seem to have taken over from guns on here.

Pete

[thinwater]

You will never even define "best."

• Longest lasting. But if it will last longer than the useful life of the boat ... who cares?
• Sudden failure mode vs. observable deterioration. Strong and brittle vs. weaker but tough. Corrosion vs. breakage.
• Weight. Too heavy can be less seaworthy and certainly less fun.
• Bulk and clutter.
• Simplicity vs. complexity of repair, operation, design, and installation.
• Time. If I'm going to miss valuable sailing time, it may not be "best" for me. I won't live forever and now matters.
• Decision time. Avoid paralysis and get it done.
• Type of sailing. I, for one, have not the slightest interest in sailing blue water again. Been there, not as fun as coastal sailing, for me. Priorities vary.

Best may be the compromise that results from selecting "good enough" across many factors.

[redhead]

The determination of TB vs GE is so subjective with boat systems as with anything else in life.

I just met Lynn Pardey a couple of weeks ago and her definition of "TB" vs "GE" differs vastly from a coastal cruiser in a new boat with myriad systems. It was a fascinating meeting.

So we can talk to each other using the same terminology, but our starting points may be very different.