What defines an Expedition Yacht?

So are you suggesting that it's an expedition yacht if it could be refitted to make it into an expedition yacht? I can't imagine a motorboat that couldn't be fitted with a mast, rigging, and keel, does that make every boat a motorsailor?

You may even do the reverse.

MY Islander comes to mind.

M/Y Islander?s Transformation

Yeah, we are all well aware of those web-sites. The 86' Nordhavn is talking about a 20' tender most likely a Rib and you can't get a 25CC up on that Northern Marine boat deck. Your mindset is still in the 100' plus range

Nice to go back to your memory banks and pull out something from the 70's to bring into this discussion. I was talking about current boats, maybe you can at least keep it relevant with examples in the last decade or so............

Yeah, let's compare adding some storage / cabinets / freezers to refitting a motoryacht with masts, rigging, keel modification, the whole nine yards. I see your point clearly

Exactly!!!

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When he does a bit of searching and finds a modern one that can are you going to move the goalpost again?

You also seem to have missed his point about not many sub 150' full displacement yachts being built not as expedition yachts these days. It's not that, as you suggest, all possible yachts are expedition yachts, but rather, that people have lost their taste for non-expedition displacement yachts in that size range.

Those are two very different things, the false interpretation that you seem to have taken is merely compatible with your view (still false). What he actually seems to have meant implies that there once was a class of small yacht that wasn't expeditionary and that is absolutely ****ing to the position that all yachts are expedition yachts because they hypothetically could be refitted.

As to the difficulty of fitting a vessel with sailing gear, fitting it with additional tankage is going to be about as hard as adding a keel and a mast, I don't see where you get the idea that they are vastly different and that the analogy doesn't apply. Adding dry and cold storage can mean moving around the bulkheads to rearrange the space, and rewiring. When making a non-expedition yacht into an expedition yacht is easy in your head, that just means that you haven't thought about the costs of such a conversion, not that they aren't real costs.

That's right everything I say is false and you are always right.

Because I never said you could convert any / all MY to your version of what an "Expedition" yacht should or should not be. I referenced that a current full displacement MY as being suitable for an "expedition" yacht with changes. Look at the earlier psots, comments heve been made that Horizon has said they would work with the owner on fuel/storage/layout, so what has got your shorts on fire?

You are looking to belittle my point of view with ludicrous analogies that are not relevant. I am more than aware what a conversion would take (technically and financially) on new construction or retrofits so quit BS'ing me.

"Expedition" is a broad and loose term for recreational vessels, you can try and box it into what YOU prefer, but Industry will continue (rightfully so) to market product that meets their own expectations of the "Expedition" yacht. Plain and simple. There is no malicious or ignorant attempt to mislead the targetet consumer market, who will be an experienced boater. If you have specific requirements, lay them on the table with a builder or yard and go at it.

I think it is crystal clear that I have not missed the point about currently built sub 150' full displacement MYs being put into service as an expedition yacht and am in totally agreement with CaptJ on that fact.

As far as the 80' range PJ MY reference, the link will show you that it does not have a 25' tender and that the published diplacement must be off or it is not a true full displacement hull, especially for a 90 footer.
http://www.**************/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=76051&url=



The goal posts were not moved, you just showed up at the wrong field.....

Hearing this is one of my major pet peeves. It's a way to represent yourself as having been beset upon. No one, least of all me, owes you a conversational win. If you feel that the crux of the conversation is that I think that most of what you have said is wrong it doesn't mean I'm being unfair (which is undoubtedly the implication) It could just mean that what you are saying is wrong. If you want to break the conversational habit of everything I say being right and everything you say being wrong then try to come up with better reasons.

And similarly I never said that you claimed all yachts could be converted. I took your claim to mean that you think that all yachts that could possibly be converted should be considered as such. instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth that I did not a better way to deal with the point would be to correct me if I am wrong about your position. If it is your position that all that can be converted ought to be considered as such then you have to deal with the motorsailor analogy, if not then you have a different set of issues to deal with.

Why isn't the analogy relevant. Please come up with a better reason than the fact that it's inconvenient to your point of view. As I see it, your position on what constitutes an expedition yacht is inaccurate, and apt analogies are often inconvenient to inaccurate conclusions.

If you are aware of the fact that retrofitting in extra tanks and extra storage is a similar task to retrofitting in a mast, gear, and keel, then why did you represent the non-existent large difference between those tasks as being A) existent, and B) inconvenient to the analogy?

What is right for the industry to do as a business decision has no bearing on what is right for the community to do about defining terms. As you may recall, I don't actually have a stringent set of standards about what level of performance and capability justifies the use of the term expedition yacht. My proposed standard was based around passage making capability. I just disagree with the notion that we should let the term mean nothing just because industry has a vested financial interest in making it mean nothing.

You can be in full agreement with him on the fact, but miss how the larger post which used that fact in context disagrees with your argument. I know this to be true, because clearly it has happened.

I'm not sure what you mean by the displacement being off. There is no rule that I'm aware of that says that a full displacement boat needs to be heavy (or is it too heavy). What I do see is an 18' tender with about three and a half feet in front of it and several feet behind it. I think that with a different cradle you could have a 25' tender on that boat. I don't see how what you have posted at all disagrees with CaptJ's position, or mine (that words should mean something) or anyone else's really.

First goal post: Name a boat
Capt J: makes a touchdown
Second goal post: Name a modern one

If you change your criteria after they have delivered that's what moving the goal post means. Perhaps you should go look at the wikipedia link that I posted.

you'd get points for continuing the sports metaphor, but I'm going to asses a 50 yard penalty for not actually connecting it to me. I haven't showed up at the wrong field, you just aren't paying attention to the plays.

Hi,

OPCN, You were not much use the last time you decided to try and show everyone the light while forgetting to fit the light bulb.

It ain't much better this time.

My position seems to be in broad agreement with the majority, including that of the reviewer, that the term should mean something. I'm not sure that it's fair to classify my position here as me "trying to show everyone the light," as to not fitting the bulb, perhaps if you point out a segment of my argument that you find to be incomplete I can better illustrate my point for you.

My argument is very simple, expedition as a descriptor means something to people, so we should use it when it means what people think it means, and not use it when it doesn't.

Do you disagree with that? Do you think that Judy was wrong to hesitate to grant the title to the EP69?

Not better at all...

Do you disagree with what I said, or is it just that it was said by me?

Flame off please!

Sierra Rose Yacht | Lake Tahoe | For Sale or Rent

Here is an 86' full displacement "yacht" that will never be able to go on an expedition. Elsewhere I tried calling this a houseboat (and am still inclined to do so) but was pretty sharply rebuked for doing so.

Come on CaptJ, what question was changed? It seems to me that you went from 80' to 86' to 90' and then to what? Like I said before, you are approaching this with a 100' mindset.

I asked you to cite a recent example of an 80' full displacement MY that could carry a 25" CC, and you continue to espouse that one exists but you have not provided one as a real life example. A 25CC like a Contender, or whatever, not 25' loa counting tilted outboards, swimplatform, pulpit, whatever - just be real. Unless I am way off base, it has not happened in that class of vessel (80'), not for Nordhavn/Northern Marine/Inace/Delta whoever. I will admit that I like facts, not heresay, but as a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, I have put 22' tenders (Grady White) on boats starting at 115", which makes sense for a lot of technical reasons, and can tell you with some authority that at 80' it will not work for an ocean class vessel, unless someone has practically built the boat around it.

Look at Ocean Research, the great white shark tagging vessel, a true "Expedition" vessel as a converted Alaska Crabber at 126', and they spend plenty of time dragging that 25' Contender around. It takes a big vessel to handle that size of tender.

I am glad you and others can speak for most people, I can only speak for myself. Picking 25' is so arbitrary and misleading to the reader for this size (80') application.

You said "There are not many full displacement hulled motoryachts being built under 150' these days unless they are expedition yachts." I interpreted this as most full displacement MY under 150" can be considered Expedition Yachts, I already told you I agree with that statement.

If an Expedition Yacht would have to only be considered one that would have to have the ability to travel all oceans, then the key feature would be an Ice-strengthened / Hull Structure and the associated redundancy, maybe even classed. But I personally feel that is too restrictive on the recreational boater, as not all Expeditions will venture into ice conditions, and many non-ice strengthened vessels have successfully ventured into those waters, recreational and commercial alike.

I am still looking for what you term the "proper answer" or why don't you just say that you have to go bigger than around 80' to carry that much desired 25CC as essential Expedition equipment?

Expedition, Explorer, Trawler, Long Range Cruiser, Passagemaker, Full Displacement MY, Motorsailor, let the marketers do their stuff, it's hard enough to make it a go in this Industry..........

Hi,

While there might be physical space top jam more toys on the top deck in order to compete in the weenie waving contest have you taken the time to consider the differences in weight these larger items will show.

I am not aware that yacht builders be they expedition or motor yachts build their boats with cranes,foundations and stability ready to just drop whatever you can shoehorn into the space onboard.

Your 25 ft centre console boat will be heavier and wider than the 18/20 ft it replaces - How will this affect the mother vessel when being launched and retrieved? Can the lifting arrangements for the 20 ft tender really handle the increased loads of the 25 ft?