Cape Horn Yachts

Cdg, Do you still have Columbus and if not do you know where she is?

I missed an opportunity to purchase her younger sister High Note now Whiskey Hotel. So am looking for Columbus just in case she’s available or might be available soon. Any info will be greatly appreciated.

They sound like wonderful boats. Super wet because of water coming over the bow, combined with decks that don’t shed water fast enough, and too heavy so they rock and roll. They need to be self righting, because they’ve too heavy for the design and more apt to roll over in the first place.

And exactly how many long trips have you done on these Cape Horns? Aside from going on seatrials in mostly a very moderate sea state, what yachts have you done any long trips on (longer than 50 miles? If owners have nothing to compare their new yacht to, then how do they know what is a good ride, bad ride, great ride? How many newish Hatteras and Viking MY's have you ridden on in a decent sea to compare to? Most owners have cruised on a smaller yacht they owned or only a yacht or two in that size, so how and what do they compare the ride to. I really didn't want to exasperate further on my previous post, but you asked.

Did you fail to read the first 10 posts? You admitted they increased bow flare and installed a tow rail to keep green water off of the deck on the 63's. You just complained about it. There are several owners in this thread that have complained about their handling. The exerpt from Wright of Passage of having lakes of water on the decks and flybridge decks (how does this effect stability) in was it post 5. Did you fail to read of all of the previous posts?

A displacement hull, by it's design is supposed to displacement a certain amount of water and be of a certain weight, overload the weight and now it's too heavy for the amount of water it's supposed to displace, causing all sorts of ill handling characteristics. The designer and builder totally got the weight of the superstructure wrong. HOW???? They specified the plate thickness, amount of ribs, drew up the design, and knew EXACTLY how many square feet of steel comprises the superstructure. a 3/8" sheet of steel of the same grade weighs the same no matter where you get it. This is ELEMENTARY. SO, they overloaded the hull design, now they add a shoe on the keel, FURTHER exasperating the overweight condition of the vessel and now screwing up the hydrodynamics of the hull underwater at the same time. So you take a huge mistake and throw a big bandaid on it, AND continue to build subsequent boats that way. OF course the boat is going to be tender and rock and roll and roll over. It's way overweight for it's length, beam, and hull design and the amount of water it is supposed to displace.

Ahhhh Houston, we have a problem...….. the superstructure is way overweight causing the boat to rock and roll...….ahhhhh just haul it and throw a big heavy shoe on the keel to counteract it...….then let's just keep building subsequent boats the same way! How hard would it have been to change the hull design after hull #1 and add 1' of beam or something similar to simply carry the weight and fix the issue properly, it is steel after all, very easy to make changed between boats. Remember the yacht Baiden, all it needed was a big heavy shoe also!!!!!!! It would've rolled over and popped right back up if it had that shoe! Oddly enough I ran a 76' Northern Marine once in 10-12' seas both off of the bow and the beam and it handled them beautifully.

Every stabilizer company around, ONLY works on stabilizers. Trac doesn't install a new set of stabilizers on a yacht and touch or re-engineer the steering system nor does naiad nor Wesmar, nor any of the others. Nor would I expect a Sea Star technician to work on my stabilizers. It's never a problem. The steering system, what exactly was monkey'ed around with? You have rudders, a tie bar, a steering ram or two and a head unit. The steering wheel essentially turns the rudders that the builder installed......generally the rudders either turn or they don't when you turn the wheel, what exactly is there to monkey with? Did they modify the rudders? The steering should have little input into the discussion, when the boat won't track worth a darn with the rudders straight and no input from the steering wheel because it's grossly overweight and wallowing around like a stuck pig.

A 100' commercial fish boat that is packed with 100 lb fish to the decks is about the absolute worst analogy you could give. Why? Because a 100' fishboat loaded to the decks with fish is overloaded 99% of the time between the weight of the fish, the ice, and the brine water sloshing around the fish hold. Ask any commercial fisherman, they pack them till they can't even walk in the fish hold and are way overloaded, when they're on the fish. They are tender and rock and roll horribly when loaded down with fish. The crew gets paid a percentage of what the boat makes each trip after expenses are paid, more fish=more profit. I guess it's a perfect comparison to a Cape Horn.

That being said, a customer I am dealing with, surveyed one of these 82' babies. I spoke to his hull surveyor who is very well respected, also holds a marine engineering degree and confirmed what the customer told me of when he seatrialed it. The surveyor confirmed he has surveyed a few of this brand and they all have exhibited poor handling traits.

Here's what he said (he subsequently bought a different yacht in that size range from a reputable builder).
"I was under contract on a 82 Cape Horn despite the dock talk about stability issues and based upon adamant assurances of broker; here is what I know.
1). Spoke with Naval Architect, he said many stability compromises were made to accommodate shallow draft for Bahamas, not a negative report but not a glowing endorsement. Spoke with previous Captains, Both Captains said boat was very tender. Broker said Captains and Naval Architect each had axes to grind and then provided details supporting this position.
2). At sea trial, calm conditions (1-2 seas, about five miles off shore)
- Surveyor calls for 2/3 rudder while cruising at 8 kts; BOAT PITCHES OVER 35 DEGREES.... Lots of OH SHITS from Captain and Surveyor with everyone scrambling for a handhold. Broker blames on Stabs. Stabs are pinned, 20 degrees of rudder; same wild ride. I called end to
survey at that time and we returned to dock.

To say the boat was tender would be the mother of all understatements. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would take that particular boat to sea, much less run an inlet with a following sea."

Here is a link to the design firm of the latter Cape Horn's for a brief description of the product:

http://www.nevilleboats.com/stock_plans_cape_horn_75.htm

There are some telling comments in the brief overview, also interesting to note from a design perspective that the CH 75 and CH 81 were designed by a different firm than the original CH's which were done by Robert Charles Johnston, who recently passed away in 2018.

There may be different attributes to products designed by different naval architects to consider, but miles underway, ocean crossings and circumnavigations completed would paint a pretty good picture of the on water use and capability of these designs.

You are very very badly informed about Cape Horn Yachts.

Seems you havent a clue.

I OWN a Cape Horn Yacht, Devils Advocate 76' which I maintain in as new condition.

Her maiden voyage was transatlantic to Monaco, with no problems worth mentioning.

I have done long cruises with her and very often in adverse conditions with up to 82kts of wind coming from Starboard and she behaved very well and her stabilizers did a perfect job. In storms every ship 'moves' with the waves and even rock and rolls depending on your angle of attack to both the seas as well as the winds. That said, Devils Advocate has weathered force 12 seas and always made me and my crew feel safe.
When other, substantially larger ships stayed in harbour, we happily sailed out.
We have no various occasions sailed from Barcelona to Marseille or St. Tropez in stormy weather crossing the Golf de Lyon when no other ship dared and never regretted it. She does not pitch as you falsely describe. Her very large stabilizers keep her always within bearable movements.

We have saved a sailing boat and its captain from smashing into rocks because our ship was stable when others issue maydays.

So as opposed to what you write, it is wonderful to own a Cape Horn ship and sad that only so few were made. I will not write negatively about other shipyards, but will say that she beats any other shipyard that makes trawlers hands down.

So next time, before you consider criticizing something you know nothing about do others a favour and remain silent.


Greetings

Charles

Well Hi Ya'll: This 9 year old thread turned into a gold mine for me . I myself have never gone to sea on a Cape Horn but if I don't die in the next couple of years, I will.

I, like Mr. Sever (who I hope to meet someday) have looked at and studied hundreds of yachts and it always comes back to the same deductions he made in his search. Those deductions and his reasoning were printed in his great little book.

When I finally read that book my search narrowed to one of his boats or nothing.

All the nay sayers that sit at their computers picking on little threads of illogic while ignoring the positive comments of the owners of these fine boats might do better on a debate team than a bridge. Take their comments out and this would be a great blog. Anyway they might as well save their breath (or typing time) as far as I'm concerned.

I am now in a financial position to buy just about any boat. But, it won't be just any boat. it will be a Cape Horn 81.

As for you JWY: I love ya. I have your number. Be expecting a call

Terry Smith
Waco, Texas
[Phone nr deleted]

Hi Terry and welcome to YF,

I have to take exception with your comment about nay sayers because they often get owners & readers to trade in their lurker status. Participation actually goes UP when someone posts inaccurate information, which isn't very often on YF.

Judy,
1. Did the Superstructure on the 81' come in a lot heavier than the designer origionally estimate it to come in at, yes or no?

2. Was a shoe added to the keel of hull #1 after the build, and incorporated to the build on subsequent hulls to conteract the negative stability of the superstructure being a lot heavier than the designer origionally anticipated, yes or no?

3. Do you feel, in your extensive experience that having the superstructure weigh a lot more than the designer anticipated and designed, and then adding a heavy shoe on the keel to counteract the stability issues of having the superstructure too heavy for the design, would have any negative aspects in the displacement of the vessel, or negative aspects in the overall handling of the vessel, now that the weight and displacement is beyond the designers initial hull design and specs?

4. After the 81' that you surveyed and it was mentioned earlier, while on survey and seatrial that when the rudder was turned 2/3, in 1-2' seas, did the vessel pitch violently and almost throw everyone on the floor?

5. Was this vessel then not tested directly after this episode in the same sea state with the stabilizers pinned in the centered position and with 2o degrees of rudder, did it or did it not still pitch violently?

6. Did CH change the design on the 63' and add more bow flare and toe rails to diminish green water on the deck, yes or no?

7. Did the owner of Wright of Passage complain of green water on both the flybridge deck and main decks on many voyages and poor draining of that green water on their website?

8. What year was the last Cape Horn launched from their Canadian yard? What size?

9. What year was the last Cape Horn built, worldwide? What size?

10. How does a Submarine behave on the surface or just below the surface in a moderate to heavy sea state?

Here is a very interesting statement from Charles Nevilles website:
Today, this design is indeed suitable for customization to meet your own specific needs. The Cape Horn boats were all steel. A better alternative, however, would be a steel hull with an aluminum deckhouse. That combination greatly improves the stability characteristics of the boats by reducing weight particularly weight located up high. Our experience with the boat also suggests that the large bilge keels which, yes protected the fin stabilizers, actuality prevented them from doing their job very well. The boat really works better without them. The additional control that active fins provide will greatly increase the livability for most offshore boats. If you have a tall tri-deck model, this advantage is even more important. "
www.nevilleboats.com/stock_plans_cape_horn_75.htm

I simply answered your long posting, basically calling me out. I admit when I am wrong, but all of the facts state otherwise. I don't deal in feelings, I deal in facts. I asked you 10 simple questions which require no more than a yes or no answer, or a sentence at most. All of which went UN-ANSWERED. As well as the designers comments on his own website that state stability is effected greatly by the heavy steel superstructure

" A better alternative, however, would be a steel hull with an aluminum deckhouse. That combination greatly improves the stability characteristics of the boats by reducing weight particularly weight located up high. " CHARLES NEVILLE

The fact that you cannot answer my simple YES or NO questions, that are normal straight to the point questions, basically state that they are true. It would have taken less time to answer the 10 questions than type the smoke screen presented above.

That being said, Charles Neville himself states in the 76'/81' section of his website that the vessel would be much better with an aluminum superstructure. He also admits that the stabilizers are useless in the design due to the design of the bilge keels. I quoted his words from HIS website.

It is fact that both the superstructure weight came in way above the designers hull design and made the boat very tender. It is fact that a heavy shoe was added to the keel after this was discovered on hull #1 and was used on all of the subsequent hulls. The only reason the shoe was installed was an attempt to "correct" this issue and was not part of the initial design. Those are facts.

One cannot take a displacement hull design, that was designed to displace a certain amount of water (based on it's length, beam and ratio)and throw TONS of weight into the build that the hull was not designed for and have it handle as well as it was designed to handle and without adding some kind of poor handling characteristic. It's simple physics.

Whether your phone rings or does not ring, does not effect me one way or another. I cannot imagine why you would even put that sentence in your post or how it is even relevant or why you would even think that I would care.

My phone rings all of the time and I give away 1-2x the amount of work that I actually take, to others in the industry, because I am completely booked and completely overloaded and don't even want the work I have but it's all from very good long term customers. Quite honestly, I'd rather have more time off. If you know anything about me, I have been in business over 15 years and have worked in the industry over 20 years. Never once have I advertised or solicited business and never once have I had any real shortage of business, it's always the opposite. Not that that is relevant either, nor anyone in this thread would actually even care about.

I've never been on a Cape Horn. However, I've read this thread and I've talked to those who have been on them and even have owned them. I would, based on that, submit the following. Isn't it entirely possible that most owners have been very happy with their boats but that one or two boats along the way were not up to those standards? That would give the strong and wildly opposing views. I look at how glorified a brand like even Feadship is and yet research will tell you they aren't perfect and there are now older Feadship's in not such good condition.

The most popular long range cruising below 100' brand is Nordhavn. I don't like them. I could never tolerate their commissioning program and the time it takes to get all the bugs worked out. However, I'm not buying one so I don't really count in the final survey. The majority of their owners are very happy and many are repeat buyers. So, who is right? Neither of us or both of us? I'd say we both have valid points. For instance I'd point out the issues on the Atlantic Crossing. Nordhavn would point out that most were on stabilizers. I won't accept though that not being a Nordhavn issue as they put them on. I will accept they've long since solved the issue.

There's no judge nor jury here so no winner will be declared. In fact, if that was the case probably both would be thrown out for contempt of court (meant in humor so laugh). It's my personal belief that there are and have been many very happy Cape Horn owners who have cruised a lot of miles, but that there were a couple of boats over the years not up to those standards and quite strongly disliked by their owner. Now, I'm not getting into pointing out which one or who but simply stating my view. For my personal use, they're too slow so doesn't matter. lol

We have two Riva's we love. I didn't like at all reading recently some attacks here on Riva's and then one was on a model we own but they then said when it got the label "Super" that meant they'd fixed the issues. I can only accept that maybe there were previous problems, but then the person criticizing must accept that we own two and have had no issues and love them.

Now, you're all free to continue the debate, but it's not one anyone is going to win and differences of opinions on a boat brand seem fine to me.

Do you like Caviar? I don't. Disgusting stuff. Oh but our best friends think it's a wonderful delicacy and will pay extra for the top brands. I was recently at a table where one member of our group was having $600 per ounce caviar and praising the quality and talked another younger member into tasting it. She made a face and said "Gross" and quickly drank water and ate something else to try to get rid of the taste. I am a connoisseur of Prime Rib though and compared to caviar it seems quite cheap.

Okay Judy, you and old boater can just stop spouting logic here. You’re just driving up the cost of my future Cape Horn. Just sit back and let old Cpt. J keep digging for dirt.
He’s most likely saving me money.

Kinda reminds me of cnn spouting ^^%$ about trump.

I'm not digging dirt. Just stating actual facts. I'm not wearing rose colored glasses and stating that every single owner is perfectly happy, because several are not, including several in this very own thread. I tell it like it is, good/bad/ or in between. Just read the first handful of posts. It is not like every poster in this thread has a totally glowing review.....it's almost half and half. Some are great reviews and some are absolutely horrible. Many of them from 10 years ago. When the Naval architect is not happy with how his own design was built and publicly critiques it, that says a lot. The Naval Architect is the first authority on how the yacht should ride and handle. Not to mention provides all of the stability statistics, righting motion, calculations etc. So if the vessel isn't built as to plans in regards to the weight, all of the stability calculations for safety done by the naval architect are useless. If it's a classed boat, all of those stability calculations would have to be redone based on the current (actual) weight, many measurements would have to be made, and many tests and seatrials would have to be made for proper stability figures (none of this was done by Cape Horn as far as anyone I've spoken to knows).

When you launch a boat, any boat, and then have to add a large heavy shoe (after the yacht is finished) to counteract negative stability because the superstructure is too heavy or much heavier than designed. It does two things, it totally changes the hydronamics of the hull and how the water flows over the hull, and it totally changes the overall weight and how that hull is going to behave. Could it provide plenty of stability so the boat rides fairly well, yes. Is it ever going to be near as good as if the builder got the weights right to begin with, never. It's a screw up, there's no other way of looking at it. Lots of builders have a hull that is a screw up, some scrap them after a few boats, so make changes and they're sort of acceptable, but they're never even close to the best riding boat in their range.

Let's take Baiden for example, the Northern Marine that rolled over on launch and put Northern Marine out of business. I ran an older 76' Northern Marine, had her out in 10-12' on the beam and directly on the bow, she was one hell of a seaboat. The owners are clients of mine, they had her as far North as Maine, as far South as Brazil, did a transatlantic on the boat, and the boat has been cruising all over the Med the past few years. Now back to Baiden, Baiden came in with the superstructure too heavy, just like the boats in this thread. Well, I'm sure if Northern Marine had thrown enough lead ballast in the keel, she wouldn't have rolled over and been a good seaboat. But when you have to make large ballast changes after the launch, the build turned sideways long before the vessel was ever launched. A steel vessel is easy to get the weight right, steel weighs the same per square foot, no matter where you source the same grade/thickness. There is hardly any variable that would change the weight.

Just look at Bertram SF. There are many who swear by them, but when you really look at them and their history. Bertram has been building boats with major coring issues for over 40 years. They have ALWAYS had major coring issues.....rotton foredecks.....rotton cockpit decks, rotton flybridge decks..... even hull sides on all of the (72's), then you have the mid 2000's 54's/63's totally coming apart (I personally know of over 12 of them myself from this era). How does a builder build boats for 40 years with the same major re-occurring structural issues over and over and over again, decade after decade after decade, without fixing their production methods, and how does someone else say they're a great builder, when you have soooooo many problem boats with major structural issues spanning 4 decades. Heck, a former Bertram employee became a multi-millionaire, fixing Bertrams with rotton coring, 1 block away from the Bertram factory (Glass-tech). What I am getting at, is you'll have a lot of glowing reviews for Bertram from some people, and absolute horror stories from others, both are true. Bertram built some good boats and they built plenty of bad ones. But nobody knowing the history of Bertram, can ever say Bertram is a Grade A, top quality builder when you really, truly look at their history. Compared to Hatteras or Viking which have had maybe a handful of problem (structurally) boats over a 4 decade period and those 2 brands ARE a quality builder/brand. What was Bertram, a good hull design that in many cases was poorly built (in regards to coring/structural). Marlow is a similar example, some owners rave about some sizes they build like the 72's, then you have several lawsuits from every owner that bought the 92', the big one they built.

Judy, when someone completely avoids yes or no questions, it is almost always because they don't want people to know the answer/truth. Or it might be as simple as they don't want to say the truth. That's elementary. You know the answers to at least 8 out of those 10 yes or no questions, but you simply don't want to put them in writing on a public forum. I have nothing against you, nor any ill will towards you, heck I don't even know you.

But I'm not going to tell everyone Cape Horns are the best trawlers ever built, when several very knowledgable people (surveyors, naval architects, engineers), that have ridden on several tell me otherwise, a half dozen negative reviews in the beginning of this thread, AND the naval architect himself who designed the boat publicly writes (on his own website) that an aluminum superstructure would have much better for stability and the stabilizers are near useless because of his bilge keel design. Do some of them possibly ride/handle great, sure. But I'm not a gambling man.

I've said everything that could be said, there is nothing more to add, and this advice is worth what you paid for it.

Judy, this is an extremely bold statement considering the vessels hull designer strongly urges publicly that the vessel should be built with an aluminum superstructure to increase stability (ride/safety). (Which none of them were). He also states the stabilizers with his bilge keel design are useless as the bilge keels kill their effectiveness. None of these are glowing reviews from the hull designer as to him thinking his design is the safest, best riding/handling trawler. Now, have a new one built with an aluminum super structure and a seakeeper, and you might be cooking with bacon.