New C52 Carver versus Sea Ray 510 Sundancer

Just curious. How many identical threads on this comparison do you intend to start?

Maybe it's too early to tell, but it appears that the answer to your question is two -- one in the Carver Yacht sub-forum and one in the Sea Ray Yacht sub-forum. It seems that blkennedy was thinking before he posted -- something that should be encouraged.

I have run Sea Ray's with the Seakeeper although not that specific boat. It performs incredibly well, as long as you size it properly. I personally don't like the spool up time and in some applications you can get bothersome noise, but the Sea Rays I ran had good sound shielding and it made a world of difference.

Often today, builders are only testing their boats with stabilizers and many of them would really be bothersome without. Many will say you don't need stabilizers on boats in that size range. Well, if you're going to run them only inland, perhaps not. However, not having stabilizers will greatly limit the use of either of them in running outside and enjoying certain conditions versus being miserable in them. They greatly reduce sea sickness. I didn't say eliminate, just reduce. If I was having either of those boats built, I'd want a Seakeeper. The other option is one neither of those builders have offered to my knowledge and that is vector fins from Sidepower.

I haven't run Carvers but I think it will help considerably, especially if you get a flybridge.

One reason Seakeepers are gaining popularity is that they're so easy to install on a new build where they're taken into consideration. Not as easy on an existing boat where you have to find space.

Just out of curiosity, I started looking at 45-55' coupes and fly, and not a lot of straight-shafts out there, lots of nice boats with pods. I agree, I would still prefer straight shafts, but that really limits the new boats you can look at to just a couple.

It's funny that the consumer sees Seekeepers as a must have in 51' of boat, that is probably more like 47/48' when compared to the old days. I understand comfort for all onboard, but man, there have been a lot of miles inside and outside on Sundancers in this class over the years without the assist of gyro-stabilizers. How did they ever manage

They managed less comfortably. It's not a matter of safety but one of comfort which I think is very important. They also stayed put in conditions that really were not that bad.

Sea Ray offers conventional drives as does Carver. But then others such as Sunseeker do also. There are plenty of non-pod boats out there.

I don't know. Plenty of 48/52 DA's ran up and down the coast in their time, not to mention a 55 or 60. All without the benefit of a Seakeeper. We are talking small Express boats that now should be stabilized. No tower, no flybridge with enclosure, nice decent low vcg. I get that the added cost is not a big deal in a $1M purchase, but can only imagine the boater of the future. No rock, no roll, completely level is the way to go!

Yes, no rock, no roll, completely level is the way to go. Running up and down the coast is one thing, but here on the east coast a lot of the boats without stabilizers do a huge percentage of their running in the ICW. Also, many boats like to do more, cross the gulf stream to the Bahamas, even run to the Caribbean and stabilizers can be the difference between go and no-go.

Stabilizers can be the difference between a spouse enjoying boating or not really being excited about it. Also, stabilizers decrease the probability of seasickness significantly. I was surprised when I saw stats there. Sidepower's claim on a test Princess 56 with their vector fins was underway a reduction of 97% roll and 99.8% seasickness and at anchor reduction of 66-72% roll and 88-92% in seasickness. Sounded like a lot of advertising exaggeration to me until we bought our Sunseeker with their vector fins and they do an incredible job.

Most of these boats run well without stabilizers although a few don't as they were always designed to be run with them. However, even those that do run better with them. I've talked to a couple of small trawler owners with stabilizers and they've commented on the fact they go out very comfortably in conditions that without stabilizers they would stay in as their wife or kids or parents who sometimes go with them don't like roll.

The ride improvement is always worth it to me. The only criticism I'd see of stabilizers is it's one more thing to break and one more item of maintenance.

I find the argument that "in olden times we ran fine without them" to really mean nothing. The question is not what people did in the past but whether today they'd be happier with them or not.

Well that is one more option, Sunseeker 52' flybridge. The 50' coupe has pods only. If it is not too much trouble, since you know of plenty of others, any other suggestions to look at?

Shoot, I am only talking like 10 years ago, pre Gyro Stabilizer era. I think the first ones included products from Mitsubishi, now Seakeeper is becoming an industry trade name like "Kleenex" and Veem has a quality product as well. The SidePower Vector Fins are relatively new as well.

But I can appreciate a product that brings more and new customers to the market and hopefully turns them into life long boaters. At the same time, I appreciate having developed my own sense of "sea legs" without stabilization, as I am more aware of my limits in varying sea states and stabilization then becomes a bonus feature, not a must have, but a nice to have option.

I expect gyros and vector fins will change boat designs, as manufacturers can compromise hydrodynamic stability features, to get other desirable (sellable) attributes. Purists might not like it, but for-profit companies that make boats will do it. Smaller flybridge boats might become more popular again.

I would say it is a fair statement that no recognized recreational (small craft) stability criteria (ISO 12217-1:2015 or USCG CFR) would allow their criteria to be met assisted with a mechanical device like a gyro or fin stabilizers. It would certainly not hold up under the scrutiny of a court of law to depend on a system that can fail. Small craft will always have to have designed in an inherent amount of unassisted intact stability that would drive the results for an normal ISO Stability certification, if that is the goal of the builder. Only things like foam flotation are used to meet swamp/capacity standards.

I do love the old 28' Flybridge SF boats, but that market has a death nail driven through it by the hit and run 28 - 34' CC world, where outboards have claimed they stake on market share. There would be little profit to achieve in that segment.

I think you're both right on design. For safety purposes, the boats will have to meet all criteria without stabilizers. However, for comfort purposes, the builders will make the assumption of stabilizers.

Ride vs. stability vs. speed vs. whatever, there are tradeoffs when designing a hull and an entire boat. Boating forums are full of debates and discussions of which attributes various boats have, usually in a discussion of which boat to buy. If a customer can have stability and smooth ride and speed, that will sell more boats. This isn't saying they'll build boats that can't stay upright without stabilizers, but significant changes to chines and deadrise and keel shape could be made to increase efficiency and ride without sacrificing stability.

Sunseeker builds very good sea boats....very good performing.......