Cape Horn Yachts

There were 5 Cape Horns built with the Thrustmaster Z-Drive. One was on Peter Sever's personal yacht, hull # 1. Three of them were on the CH 63s and one was on a CH65. The 65 was a mechanical drive, whereas the others were hydraulic. It was a $120,000 option at the time they were built. I don't think any of those owners are YF members.

Judy

Thanks f0r the reply. Do you know how the 5 units held up?

Excellently! Hull #1's second owner has been cruising the Indian Ocean since the late 90s and I haven't been in touch with the him for a few years. One of the 63s has been sold by other brokers so I am not in touch with the current owner. I have not heard of any Z-drive problems on either of those vessels. I can speak for 2 of the 63s and the 65. All 3 of those vessels have been cruised extensively for many years in the Canadian Maritimes, Caribbean, Alaska (one 63 only as far as Panama but full-time in the Caribbean for 8 years). They have each had minor servicing, I believe once, and that was on pre-purchase survey. One had a crab pot line caught in the seal and that required seal inspection (via emailed photos at haulout) but nothing further was required. The line was actually discovered at a pre-purchase survey and had not affected the operation. Thrustmaster of Texas has been excellent in providing information and assistance, especially considering that there are very few yachts (only Cape Horn I believe) that have used their Z-drives. The advantages are 360 degree rotation of the prop, no shaft nor cutlass bearings, excellent maneuverability, and the same amount of power in reverse as in forward.

Hope this helps.

Judy

Thanks it does.

However hard chines are not scientifically more water resistant nor less efficient than radiused chines. The Inuit for example used mostly hard chines their canoes since countless decades/centuries -- because they are less tippy. They also use arm power so would notice. This was were tank tested and found to be inconsequential. Not in canoes nor in yachts.

Hello, I'm the (new here) builder of the Cape Horns and Chuck Neville was the original 76-81 naval architect. He made a huge costly error (costly to me, not to him!) in his weight calculations: Oops his own numbers on the superstructure weight were way off. He blamed his engineer of course and just said "sorry." Over to me to solve! So we did, we deepened the hull, had to move thru-hulls, added 6" of draught or so, but without harming performance it turns out. To accomplish this we added a massive 3" x 1.5' steel shoe the entire length of the keel bottom as useful ballast. It makes the keel indestructible! Problem was solved, but by using another architect whose calculator works better than Chuck's apparently.

So much for your 'lecture' and criticism against Judy Waldman, a great broker, my #1 fav. The relationship between architect and builder on which you are a self-proclaimed expert? Your protests aside, you don't actually know much. It's very much two-way and that is how it ought to be. Creative ideas and design improvements come from all sides.

We partnered with the superb Sparkman and Stephens team for the next generation boats, altogether a different class of professionals. As I say about medicine: "Half the doctors were in the bottom half of their class. Keep that in mind about getting a 2nd opinion." That applies to all professions in my experience.

The same architect Chuck badmouths the very bilge keels he drew in at my request, ignoring all scientific fact, tank testing and countless world circumnavigations. Bottom line, our 16 pairs of bilge keels on all boats are easy and inexpensive to remove, yet no one has ever chosen to do so in two decades of constant use and many new owners. Wesmar the active fin manufacturer also studied and approved of them. They reduce roll by some 25% at cruising speeds in tank tests and in computer simulations. That is fact not opinion. However they simultaneously reduce the active fins' efficiency by 20% per Wesmar's own study. Hence the bilge keels win the trade-off by 5%. Plus they have other bonuses like the boat standing flat on her own bottom, a biggie. They work when the boat is at standstill. They work if the active fins ever fail. And most important they protect the active fins from rocks and logs, hence potentially saving lives.

Feadship? Yes best in their class I agree but have you ever cruised on one? Ever studied one in detail? I have done both in depth. Workmanship is ethereal. But the active fins? Zero protection inside or outside. Hit one on a rock and you have a flooded hull. No compartments to protect you. Why not? Good question. Cape Horn does, we have a tank inside the fins on each hull, in addition to the bilge keels. And guess what? One family's life was possibly saved mid Atlantic in March gales when. the stabilizer fins grade 8 bolts (the best) failed sequentially and the interior flooded. But the tank we built in protected them from flooding all the way to Nova Scotia.

There you go, so many experts who have never been to sea evidently. What can one do with people who insist on being wrong and then tell lots of factual fibs?

Hi, I owned Hull #1 with a Z-drive and offered them as an option on other hulls. They are extremely robust commercial-grade equipment designed for daily tugboat use. Indeed we were ThrustMaster of Texas' first yacht customer.

That said, in fairness it is machinery and all machinery needs maintenance. I have never heard of a mechanical failure or metal yielding. But there are gaskets and seals which wear out and especially get dried out from lack of use in one case. It is specialized workmanship, so if something fails, it usually means sending in a factory rep and parts from Texas. So they are not cheap to purchase or maintain. Plus there is a degree of energy loss, with mechanical Z-drives it's likely 3% if memory serves. Hydraulic is more.

Are they worth it? Yes if you want the best-best in slow-speed handling and safety control. If do not mind the extra cost. At cruising speeds in a straight line, there is no meaningful difference.

But they can and do actually save your boat from serious trouble. A few times I had to dock with a nasty side current or cross wind, vs await the tide or winds to change. OMG I was grateful for my Z-drive! Parked on a dime in almost any conditions, between lots of costly shiny neighbours! Holding stationary for a drawbridge in a current or wind, ditto.

One of our 62's was saved by her Z-drive and her skipper's skills, from being stranded on rocks in a falling tide in remote parts of Alaska. Indeed, it was the very area where Zopilote sank, remember her? Our owner was hard aground on rocks, so turned the Z-drive around and had full power in reverse; 'wiggled' off in reverse at full power. Whew! Plan B was to spend a night of rock-pounding terror on rocks mid-nowhere.

Then he checked his bottom by beaching her intentionally during a falling tide. He called me from Alaska overjoyed that after a serious rock pounding in waves, he just scratched the keel bottom and since he had 3" of steel keel left, was not going to worry about it until his next bottom painting.

So there are pluses and minuses to the Z-drives and to answer your question: They last forever if maintained properly.

You are so rude and so factually wrong, whoever you are. I built the boats 20 years ago, but am shocked when I read this ridiculous nonsense.

FACT: the GM of the boats was actually close to perfect with a steel superstructure designed to withstand a roll-over. Paranoid? Yes. But we went 'overboard" (sorry) on all safety and survival aspects. The superstructure wight was factually a Chuck Neville math error. Period. He was way out and blamed his engineer of course. My problem to fix at my expense not Chuck's, so I did it with the help of another NA with a calculator having a good battery in it!

We raised the thru-hulls by perhaps 6" if memory serves, added 6" of draught with apologies to our owners, put a massive steel 3" x 18" shoe on keel bottom the entire length of the boat. It had some benefits of course and did not hurt performance it turned out. But we did suffer a deeper draught than design specs! So the talk of aluminum is historically irrelevant for Chuck, he miscalculated period. Oops!

CONTINUED HERE BECAUSE I EVIDENTLY TIMED OUT ON ABOVE MESSAGE ...

I was convinced by the superb Sparkman and Stephens team we subsequently partnered with post-Neville, to go with an aluminum superstructure because (a) more than a knockdown was virtually impossible on these hulls due the superstructure's buoyancy so 90 degrees was the actual worst case scenario and (b) for the same weight as steel we could build a larger aluminum superstructure. Which is what we did.

They convinced me. The next generation was an aluminum superstructure, of IDENTICAL WEIGHT as the steel one. It just became more luxurious is all. So all the expert talk about too much weight is mere nonsense. None of the 3 hulls owners sees a problem either.

Chuck's nose is going to grow Pinoccio-style, he simply goofed and now blames others just as he did at the time, it was his anonymous engineer's fault, awww. Chuck cost me a lot of money with that little goof too! That aside, we subsequently fixed his goof with no lasting harm done. Just 6" extra draught, which is not critical; no one has complained to me about the draught.

Now for the BILGE KEELS. I just wrote a factual reply for another forum member. Kindly do read it. Chuck is ridiculously wrong and in several regards is a bad NA. I say this because he wilfully ignores the provided raw science.

The in-water tank tests. Professional computer simulations by the best in North America. Wesmar stabilizer fin manufacturers' two-thumbs-up approval of them. The boat stands on her own bottom unaided! The vulnerable glass fins are so protected inside and out!

Moreover he ignores maybe two-dozen or more Cape Horns owners' sequential many-circumnavigation equivalents. The same admonition goes out to the rude know-all "expert" I am replying to. Disgusting and illiterate.

We provided the bilge keels for free, why would I do that if they do not work in so many ways as a major safety and comfort feature? A maintenance bonus too? If I had a single complaint I would have addressed it, but I had not a one.

How many owners have chosen to leave the bilge keels on? 100% of them that's how many. How much does it cost to remove them? Peanuts during a normal bottom painting. Just take a Saws-All and a grinder, they are gone in a few hours; it's even a DIY for skilled owners.

Has it ever happened? Not once that I have heard in 20 years. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because owners love them? Did that shocking possibility even cross prejudiced know-all minds? Let alone Chuck's?

My head shakes in dismay. A loser NA is taking ignorant cheap shots at a good paying client 20 years later, yet has never been on a Cape Horn as far as I know, nor at sea on one. He did take his design fee however.

Facts: The active fin stabilizers work great, even Wesmar checked with its NA's and agreed. They predicted a 20% reduction in effectiveness of their active fins at cruising speeds. Well, to compensate for this projected 20% loss, we have a 25% gain in passive roll-resistance as proven in tank tests - wet and computerized alike. So we win by 5% in just full-speed cruising. Yes THEY FACTUALLY IMPROVE ROLL RESISTANCE AT ALL SPEEDS. Smarten up guys. Read my book. It is fully explained therein.

Add to the mix: The bilge keels protect the glass active fins from rocks and logs! That is huge. Zero damage is even remotely possible. Big safety item folks. That alone would justify a reduction in roll resistance but its factually quite the opposite.

You ever had stabilizers break off or otherwise fail? We have! A family was mid-Atlantic on a CH62' in a March Force 9, 2 kids aboard, 3 adults. The grade 8 bolts (the best) holding the stabilizers failed sequentially on one side. Not our fault, it just happened in a gale with the stabilizers turned up to full blast contrary to manufacturers instructions. Thats OK, people push the envelope sometimes, it's up to us manufacturers to project them even so.

The internal tank we provide on all boats prevented the hull from flooding. You count that for zero? Better count again! Or go to sea yourself and face death a few times -- then come back as a know-it-all.

We've had many hard grounding on rocks - many. Collisions with everything including boats, rocks, logs. Several hurricanes. Even had one in the famed tsunami, saved from being swept away by her Z-drive and fast-thinking owner. Many world circumnavigation equivalents - one of the 82's says he alone has sone 4-5 -- that's just one boat. They are stationed round-world. Zero failures of substantial equipment or any hulls, including stabilizer fins.

Any experts care to debate one-on-one with facts? I'll give you my phone number so you can educate me. Really, do so! I'm long out of the business but always love to learn.

Is/was my beloved Cape Horn fleet flawless? Of course not! No fleet is.

I was both the first to hear of substantive faults or failures - and they sure did happen, real and imagined ones alike; simultaneously I was also the first to address genuine faults, fix them completely, at any price. Design errors like Chuck's superstructure weight mis-calculation was but one, and was not even the worst. His ignorant finger-pointing however still sucks.

We also made better and worse boat models, had better and worse yards. But they were all fine boats and each generation got better in all ways that mattered. All substantive errors were fixed.

The bilge keels were not among those errors. Nor was superstructure weight.

Oh my, oh my! How revolting much of this is to read.

A giant "L" on the forehead to some of you guys. I just read the outdated string and am shocked by some of you old armchair quarterbacks. Kind of sickened actually. Get a life.

The preposterous armchair-expertise, frustrated-loser, sarcastic, suspicious, cynical dock-talk I am suddenly reading -- having not been on this site previously even as a reader ...

Guys I'm totally un-defensive, indeed love expert criticism from more-experienced intelligent balanced people, those who know their brass from their oboes (that's musically punny) ..

However it is shocking that some of you are so hard up for entertainment you have nothing better to do than be false and malicious without a gram of factual basis. Big "L" to you.

OK, so now's your chance to get real. Watch the video attached and start all over with your nonsense. Show readers you are a grown-up honest fellow human who doesn't engage in cheap pot-shots.

SEA TRIAL VIDEO watch it all start to finish.
Cape Horn 81 Sea Trial.m4v



Man-up. Apologize for your shoot-from-hip, over-the-fence old-wifedom.

The video is tripod-taken for the sake of relative motion. Its my own voice joking with the owner and yard guys, during initial sea trials of Wright of Passage (now Columbus) in an Atlantic force 7 - that's a mild gale that most boats would not choose to go out and play!

This was a bone fide unscripted sea trial for our business purposes and for the owner's. Outside Caraquet New Brunswick, near Gulf of St Lawrence. Cold, miserable, rough.

Watch her take the seas and winds from all directions. Stabilizers on and off. We show the rolling, the pitching, green water splashing. The original owner was aboard as was his skipper. The top fishing skipper and government boating teacher in New Brunswick was at the helm. Listen to his unsolicited comments at the end. He was IMPRESSED AS HELL. Listen. to his comparison to a 110' commercial fisher wth her belly full of cod.

This boat is uncanny in her stability in weather. Steers like on rails. In all directions to weather, at all speeds. Uncanny! Period. All of us are impressed especially the hard-butt fishermen aboard, so expert chatroom critics can do you know what with their dockside gin-and-tonic quasi-expertise. Forgive my unveiled disgust with you-know-who-you-are.

Watch the boat take the winds and waves from all directions. Listen to the owner's comments. The French-Canadian skipper especially.

Then apologize for being gossipy old wives.
Good people will respect you for manning-up.

It's been 20 years since they were launched and some are like-new, better than new in fact. Including this specific boat now in NZ. Many world circumnavigation equivalents later.

Twenty years x 16 boats constantly in the world's oceans, yet narry a serious complaint has reached me. I'm in frequent touch with some owners. I'm easy to find and reach too, if anyone wants help or to complain. I can find things in my databases to help them out, always for free of course. New owners are my 'family' even if we have never met. With some I'm email buddies. The first-ever Hull #2 owner is a close personal friend.

This 81's current owner had to replace his genset after 4-5 world circumnavigation equivalents. Isn't that just awful? It will be decades before the 30,000-hr drivetrains need an in-boat rebuild. Those Cummins N14Ms are forever, so are the trannies. So is the rest and everything is duplicated, every pump has a pre-plumbed backup.

All this ridiculous talk of wet decks and poor head-sea performance, and beam-to sea horrors and quartering sea nightmares -- WOW! Factually ridiculous and false. How come nobody told ME about any of that? Nor any of my owners?

If anyone who actually has been across an ocean on a boat (it sure sounds like few here qualify) and would like an educated intelligent discussion of specific issues, I'd be delighted.

To explain to anyone curious, I created Cape Horn as sole proprietor and financial backer. Sold the brand after Hull #16 was sold, back in 2003, with high expectations of fresh new blood. Rather tragically and unexpectedly the purchaser chose suicide rather than deal with his undisclosed issues. It took a few years to get the IP back and I have it --- but I'm 72 and having a ball in life, so starting yacht construction again is not in the cards. If anyone is keen, I'm all ears.

Meanwhile you old wives and your backstabbing nonsense should go try find a life. I cannot believe the illiterate rubbish I just read.

To those of you with legit questions or comments, I am wide open, un-defensive, will gladly exchange emails with respectful intelligence and actual boating knowledge.

Peter Sever
Creator and Owner of The Cape Horn brand and all plans.

Brett --

You missed a great opportunity. I have stated many times that the problems were with the crew "fixing" the steering and subsequently mucking it up and the stabilizers were repaired by a Wesmar rep that had been trained in Seattle a week or two before our seea trial. Then the donation company didn't even sea trial the boat after the supposed repairs and we subsequently sea trialed it the day after.

I have said all along that this was a great boat and at a bargain price because of dock rumors being backed up by the NA. Now you have testimony from 3 of the 81 owners. Like I said, you missed a great opportunity.

Judy

Well Carl, it's the first I hear of this incident or problem, but please take 10 more minutes for a thorough watch of the video I posted yesterday of the first sea trial of the identical sister ship. Then get back to me about handling issues. I repeat: "identical" sister ship. If anything Hull #17 High Note in question that you sea trialed, was lighter aloft because she has MarineDeck (much lighter cork composite) vs heavy teak on two decks on Wright of Passage = Columbus.

The two seriously-skilled and knowledgeable owners of the sister ships swear by them and their heavy weather handling. See their posts and testimonials (plus a video) herein please.

I also sea trialed Hull #17 High Note extensively in north Atlantic seas along with a group of prospective customers, Judy Waldman, and the old salts who work for the yard. None of what you described was even slightly evident. Something mechanical was clearly amiss during your sea trial.

Knowing nothing of the circumstances or most recent history, my first guess would be stabilizers doing the exact opposite of what they were meant to do: Exacerbating roll vs reducing it. Stabilizers are basically a sophisticated black box with a sensitive electronic level and motion detector sending instructions to hydraulic actualizers. The stabilizers are actually midships rudders and together they are a big one!

This is pure projection based on experience: The instructions can be and sometimes are exactly out of phase causing the fins to increased rolling not reduce it. That does in fact happen when incompetent people mess with the black box. Indeed precisely that happened to me personally on my own Hull #1 due to an inexperienced Toronto yard guy messing with the black box settings, just before wonderful star Gene Hackman was about to do a seat trial. Ouch. (Mr Hackman did make a signed offer but it was too low for me; Judy Waldman found me a much better one.) Wesmar did fix the reverse-effect stabilizer issue and Mr Hackman bought a Nordhavn 55 I gather. I was sorry to lose him I confess, I'm a huge fan.

What I do know about Hull #17 High Note is she was simply magnificent when she left the yard. Hartley Peavey the original owner is a business and electronics genius madman I really enjoyed working with most of the time. I emphasize "most." No one's perfect, present company included (he added autobiographically.)

You know how it is in the boating real world (commercial too)? Owners 'make' or 'break' a boat after she is handed over. That is simply how it is. In Hartley's case, oooohhhh how he 'broke it.' Hair-curling stories right from the delivery voyage. The hydraulics evidently started making bad noises within hours of leaving the yard. Instead of turning around and letting the superb hydraulics sub-contractor up there fix it (the company does nothing but commercial fishing boats so a yacht is child's play for them) Hartley and his un-skilled skipper kept going all the way to Ft Lauderdale, a couple weeks or hard going in some weather. The hydraulics were apparently totally fried, and I have no idea why even decades later. I bet it was something like a fluid supply issue, a valve not fully opened or whatever but that's pure guesswork.

Alas I had sold the business literally a couple weeks before that happened so was not privy to the gory details. Mike the new owner evidently promised to fix the issue, but then reneged and did not speak to me about it "I'll handle it" he said -- uh-oh. Mike subsequently committed suicide by the way, so other things were clearly going on parallel.

Ongoing upkeep by a loving owner and skilled hands-on workers who know the various components well - that's everything. In Hartley's case what I have heard is that he never used the boat at all, his wife didn't like slow-moving lumbering beasts as this is. High Note was left rotting for years in the low-tide mud of the intracoastal outside his part-time waterfront mansion. Hartley was famously cheap. "Cheap" doesn't do him justice and he brags about it laughing at himself. [Footnote: He once went to a flea market and collected a 3' cubed box of old electronic bits, FedExed it all to me with instructions to install it in his helm station. A précis of my polite answer was "no". He was pissed! But I stuck with all-new integrated stuff thank you very much!]

Hatley was too cheap to have a proper skipper and maintenance team visit every few days and maintain High Note in the mud where she rotted. Take her out and keep everything lubricated and working? No way! That involves spending a little money!

What I heard from a few experts was she deteriorated tragically from absence of maintenance. The skipper Hartley probably underpaid (did I mention he is "CHEAP"?) was probably not a star, let's say; a star skipper who actually loves boats would not work for Hartley.

Breaks my heart honestly. It's like raising a child and seeing him/her get into street drugs and ruin themselves when there is zero one can do.

Every boat builder has his happy and sad stories. Harley and High Note is among my saddest, a tear-jerker for me even two decades later. The nearly identical sister ships are proudly like-new -- in the case of Charles in the Med and his Devil's Advocate, I can report "better than new." He actually improved the boat from her delivered state it would appear. Look at his recent video posted here. I am so proud and happy, I hope Charles and I meet soon, finally! Ditto Campbell and his Columbus in NZ, looks and sounds just awesome as is his pride at several world circumnavigation equivalents. That's what they were built for - and WHOM they were built for!

Alas not built for Hartley, too bad. Too bad for you too Carl. You could have probably picked her up for a song and done the remedials for a reasonable price. She is at heart a magnificent yacht I was once very proud of, with justifiable cause. But if it's too much work for you to undertake and you got questionable advice on a maintenance disaster, I fully get it from your POV. I really do.

The bad handling of High Note? It's entirely fixable as are all other bad-maintenance issues. It will just involve remedial money and a knowledgeable TLC owner like the sister ships have.

GCSI, I hope your name is Carl? I've got no dog in this hunt!

SORRY BRETT, I CALLED YOU CARL!
Apologies, have no idea why I did that. Duh.

-Peter (just checked my name tag to be sure)

Me too.

For example I bet I was called way worse 20 times in the last day just from readers of this site! Hey it goes with the territory huh?

And BTW Brett I do mean it sincerely when I say I totally do get it from your POV when she sea-trialed badly. I might well have done the same if I didn't happen to have another highly-educated hands-on perspective.

Thank you for being sufficiently interested to sea trial her anyhow.

I'm 'handicapped' however knowing up close 'n personal, perhaps better than anyone except the two current sister ship owners, that she is an absolutely superb world-class 100-plus-year sea boat, literally among the safest ever afloat, with an exceeding well-built spacious interior. The drive train and key systems are bullet-proof and ridiculously over-built. On purpose.

All this is said on the proviso that she gets meticulously top-of-line debugged to shake off a couple decades of unforgivable cheapo neglect. A diamond sadly in the rough she evidently is, just pleading to be adopted by the right owner. Wish I could have seen her before she went on sale I'd have raised hell until someone did a major number on her, perhaps under my uncompromising supervision. She's my baby after all, even with zero fiscal interest.

Read what the 3 sister ship owners volunteered in this very chat room. I didn't pay them, do not know the current owners personally nor even know about the badmouthing going on here. Judy finally made me look at it from Philippines.

And to be perfectly candid I would not come down as strongly in a take-no-prisoners defence of every Cape Horn I built. No boat builder has only 'favourites'. Plus to be even more candid a three-decker is not what I'd chose (or did choose) for my personal use: I personally prefer the "no-crew" shorthanded raised pilothouse 65 style. Less work, easier DIY, less motion in heavy seas when lower-down. But that's just personal preferences.

For owners who want the luxurious space and the option of a live-aboard skipper/wife team, the 82' is a go-anywhere luxurious dream.

So just curious: What did you end up buying instead?

Smart move if it suits your boating style, two thumbs up.

I was initially tempted by Flemings and other cool semi-displacements; 15+ knots has a lot of appeal for exactly your reasons, the ability to get up and run. One Fleming even crossed the Atlantic (taking a serious pounding mind you!)

The internal battle between fantasy vs serious touring wages within many of us; me included. Once one realistically commits to years of live-aboard and trans-Pacific type distances, it's inevitably back to displacement power or sail. Catamarans are a temping compromise to me however - I just could not make the leap.

Speed is sure temping however! Enjoy your Hatt, it's a great answer if not tempted by remote islands and 3,000 miles between fill-ups.