Cape Horn Yachts

"Captain J", with apologies: This normally articulate guy, a best-selling boat-design book author** and an actual builder of arguably the most durable trans-ocean 16-hull yacht fleet afloat -- this very same guy finds himself speechless upon reading your enormously stupid, dishonest and physics-idiocy drivel. Lost for words that don't contain hyphenated expletives. So I'll leave it at that and repeat myself: "Enormously stupid, dishonest and physics-idiocy drivel."

"They need to be self-righting because they are more apt to roll over?" That statement alone stoops to new levels of idiocy as do your others. You, Mr dishonest not-a-captain, are an example of the price of too much free speech on the internet. Do you even know what GM is? How about roll period? We do, duh. Such 101 stupidity simply amazes me. It's a remarkable achievement that we made the superstructure so strong it can actually serve as a hull for a few critical seconds in a rogue wave or bad luck/error in a hurricane, yet you don't even understand it, and then dare criticize us for it?

Bad drainage? If you were a "captain" (which you're not) you'd have noticed the decks are sloped outwards and bulwarks are 90% tall freeing ports on both sides, no boat could could possibly drain faster. You ain't even a 101 boater, its so basic.

Wet decks? Maybe if it rains. But not from green water. How did you invent such nonsense? You don't think WE thought of not burying the bow in a force 9? Wow. How naive.

I've even never seen any of these chatrooms prior to a couple days back. YachtForums seems to be an intelligent website, a source of valuable info, exchange of ideas, a tremendously needed service to the industry. Boating is a science-meets-art topic of considerable challenge to all of us. ALL of us; no one conquers boats, some of us try harder than others to do so in one niche or another. They are a humbling. Your arrogant dishonest drivel simply does not belong.

A self-described "captain"? Perhaps one who steers rubber duckies around your backyard splash pool, but you sure as heck are not an actual blue water boater. Personally -- maybe it's just me and dozens will jump to your defence -- but your conceit and deceit are equally revolting; you insult a highly honourable profession by falsely claiming to belong to it. Go away and educate yourself, then speak, OK?

Remember: It was YOU who chose to attack my beloved two-decades-old creations with your outright stupidity and libelous fantasies. Hopefully you will be thrilled that I gave you the time of day half a world away, by reacting truthfully: "Truthfully" vs your dishonesty.

** In case Mr Rubber Duckie Captain would care for a 101 boat education I'll send you a FREE screen-resolution copy of my book on boat design that sold a few thousand copies and is extensively quoted in the excellent "Voyaging Under Power." It's highly factual and seldom challenged, albeit lacking modern gizmos like gyro stabilizers that didn't exist at the time. Just send me your email address. Then you can apologize on this website for your dishonesty.

The offer of a free 72 DPI (85-page) PDF book is open to absolutely anyone interested. Just send me your email address. Especially honest people who actually know something about floating things bigger than rubber duckies and don't falsely call themselves "Captain."

I respect real trans-ocean captains, even amateur ones; I am not one for example. I sure know how to drive and fix boats with my own hands but would never pretend to carry the title.

Mr. Sever.

You've demonstrated a total lack of class with your name calling and personal attacks. One person did a sea trial in a Cape Horn and didn't like it so you jumped on him. You viciously attacked the original Naval Architect. Then you attack Capt J, not with thoughtful responses but with attacks on his being a captain, name calling of every type imaginable.

So, he had the audacity to attack your beloved boat. How many posts are you going to post for your self aggrandizing praise and defense of your own boat? If he's arrogant, then what about you?

Capt J, right or wrong, criticized the boat. Some may be justified, some not. I'm not judging that. But you've chosen to attack the person. Much different. He chose not to follow back up in this thread even though you confirmed some of what he said regarding the early model before you fixed it. I was hoping with eight long posts defending your precious boat, you'd had your say but then you open back up with this post.

Well, your final post says a lot more about you than it does about him. I guess my post here is perhaps the same in that it's a criticism of you, but not of your ability, just of what you've posted here. You've blamed every problem any of your boats ever had on someone else and attacked anyone criticizing your boat. I love the boats I own and some of them have been strongly criticized here, but I accepted that some may not share my opinion.

Peter,
Thank you for your very informative posts. Anytime a builder or N.A. post on YF the comments are usually on point and logical . Your last post wasn't made in either of those categories but rather the obvious decision you've made to "bait" J into a response or apology that he obviously isn't going to provide you. Had that been the case you would have gotten a response five posts earlier but you've kept going. You've had your say and I believe that any doubts of Cape Horn's sea worthiness have been put to bed so please don't sully yourself in the quest for J to admit being wrong or telling you that he's sorry for mis-speaking about your beloved Cape Horn Yachts as its not in his DNA. If you continue along this line all that will happen is this thread will be locked from further comments.

OK that's a fair observation OlderBoater, no problem with it. Thanks for being honest with your reaction to my reaction!

However I sure hope that the gentleman who rejected the boat after a sea trial didn't think I was "jumping on him." It was total news to me, so I told him I'd have done the same in his shoes, thanked him for considering her sufficiently for a sea trial, and conjectured on the cause of the evident bad motion -- I happen to know the boat personally so wondered aloud why she was handling poorly.

Maybe the boat's history will be of interest to readers from another POV -- specifically the builder's. If not my apologies for being boring to others.

The naval architect Chuck who publicly and wrongly criticizes his own well-paid-for designs? Well, what do you suggest I do when I learn he is publicly stating harmful falsehoods for whatever reasons -- and I truly do not know the reasons, I asked him personally by email, we never did him anything but good and he never even bothered to come aboard one at sea, although soft-invited. He said he would desist but didn't. He is tangibly harming existing owners of boats he drew: I feel responsible to them and indeed I am. It's not my money - it's theirs. My job is to set the record straight even without a dime's potential benefit. I have actually written Chuck legal letters to desist the inaccurate falsehoods (bilge keels are a biggie) and to stop using my IP for his own cash benefit.

If my gloves-off tone is offensive to you, OK that's a fair criticism. With genuine apologies, I am not trying to be offensive, I happen to be like that sometimes, a personality flaw I suppose! The substance is however factual and true. My intent is rather to be slightly entertaining and interesting. Tales out of school perhaps of interest. Seeing another side that perhaps others don't share publicly.

Look at it from another perspective: People are spreading falsehoods mostly invented. I'm just answering them for the first time, it has been 17-some years (?) since I sold the business. People actually pushed me into the ring due the ridiculous falsehoods and badmouthing. Better or worse the record has been set straight.

But sincerely, thanks for stating publicly that you don't like my tone, I have made note of your kind observation and take no offence, indeed the precise opposite.

Good point captholli! Totally valid. I'll shut up now. In fact I'll just go away, I think it's all been said. Perhaps too often as you suggest. Appreciate your good advice.

Peter:
During our sea trial, after the first few rudder induced excursions, the stabilizers were pinned into a fixed position, yet the boat still exhibited the “roll” upon rudder input as described in my earlier post. I WANTED to purchase the boat. However, in discussion with surveyors, no one could offer a suitable (easily repairable) explanation as to why a rudder input would yield such a wild ride. To this day I’m still scratching my head.
What is your considered opinion concerning the rudder induced roll?
Brett

Brett, I've been searching in my old memory bank and even did a computer search, drew a blank. Simply cannot recall anything good or bad on leaning in hard turns. Hence my answer is honestly "I don't know."

But now that you raised it (thank you for doings so!) I do intend to find out from personal interest and as service to other owners. Am sending a note today to the two identical sister ships asking them to please do a hard-over test next time they go out, stabilizers on and off, and kindly report back. I'll post results here.

Nothing to hide or be ashamed of, it is what it is. Whatever it is however, simply ain't so bad. How can I say that? Because no one has ever even mentioned it previously in almost 20 year and 2 owners per boat on every major ocean of the world a few times. Count the circumnavigation equivalents just of this 75-82 model on more than one hand. Hurricanes and mere gales a-plenty. Owners consistently love the boats in all conditions or they are hiding it from to spare my hurt feelings (not!)

You're truthfully the first person to draw to my attention any issue whatever to do with leaning in hard turns, on any of our hulls. That's 16 x 20 years = over 300 boat-years of constant use. I would surely sit up and take notice of a performance complaint, as I am doing with yours!

Indeed I'm slightly disappointed that Judy did not tell me of your sea trial failure when it happened, I'd have fired off my note to the sister ships immediately for fast second opinions. Plus I'd have gotten on the phone to Wesmar to get them on the boat quick with someone non-newbie.

I get emotional about stability because it was my personal fetish for too long and we accomplished it - in spades. Just for a reference I'll see if I can find a sea trial report from a couple owners and their surveyors and post hereafter.

I'm not an architectural engineer but GM and Roll Period were/are my key thumbnail indicators of rolling because they summarize it all inexpensively in calm water stationary dockside tests. If memory serves we never went below 3' in GM and aimed for 4', which was deemed quite good. Roll time is easier: Loosen the lines, 2 guys rock her in lightship condition (medium-low fuel) as hard as possible from dock, timing the max roll accurately. On a 6.7 meter (22') beam like the 75-82, the roll should be under 7 seconds, closer to 6. If it's greater than 1.1 it indicates a potentially dangerous unstable boat. Long roll time indicates a too-high CG.

I'll ask the sister ships to do this test as well. The formula is 1.0-1.1 x beam in metres = seconds of roll.

With the tall superstructure centrifugal force pulling her over, your sea trial baddie makes some sense. Countervailing the centrifugal effect however is the boat's inherently uncanny (and I do mean "uncanny") roll resistance and very high stability. The 63' and 75-82 alike.

That's not idle bragging: It is both a number-crunching fact, experiential and owner-reported as well.

Seriously do watch the 9 minute sea trial video all the way through of the previous hull which was more top-heavy due teak decks. It was taken with medium fuel and a north Atlantic gale under the best fishing captain in the area.

Cape Horn 81 Sea Trial.m4v


This is not me making excuses or denying the reality of what happened Brett. It's just explaining why I am baffled, completely baffled. Punch line: "I don't have a clue, but will find out and report back."

I wish you had called me to complain at the time as well if you otherwise liked the boat (I have not seen her in 17? years.) I find anything akin to what you report as totally unacceptable, even though there's not a dime in it for me. Just professional pride and unspoken responsibility to other owners.

------------------------------------

Just in case a couple readers might become interested in contacting Judy Waldman (my only recommended trawler broker) to find you a used one eventually, I'm next going to post 2000 AD sea trial reports from the third 63' hull 1st generation -- by the same gentleman who still owns her on the west coast 19 years later.

Baird the still-owner who wrote this report at the time, was merely a US Navy nuclear sub officer (!); then became president of Siemens Nuclear Reactors for a few decades. He took her around from Nova Scotia to Seattle himself! Does his own bottom work and such for fun.

One of my other customers was just Head of Aircraft Safety at Boeing, and is now on NTSB, you see him on TV sometimes reporting after a crash.

The other review is by the former president of Wackenhut who was an officer in the US Army and is a chopper pilot for fun.

That's the kind of guys we had to satisfy on performance and safety topics. Believe me, they checked! 75% of our customers were either professional pilots or former US Navy or both -- interesting coincidence for a safety-fetish company huh? It was such an honour to deal with folks way smarter than me on so many issues, I learned a lot.

CUSTOMER FEED-BACK RE: FIRST SEA TRIAL year 2000
Third CH 63' hull, 1st generation
by the same gentleman who still owns her in 2019 in the Seattle area.

Baird was a US Navy nuclear sub officer; then president of Siemens Nuclear Reactors for a few decades.
He took her around from Nova Scotia to Seattle himself!
Does his own bottom work and such for fun. The finest gentleman imaginable.

Subject: Sea-Trials

Date: From: To:

Tue, 16 May 2000 05:54:17 EDT RBS241@aol.com
petersever@home.com –

LOG: May 5, 2000

We got underway, Chris (The Captain), Mike (The Engineer), Paul (The Cape Horn Rep), and myself at about noon on the fourth. The purpose is to test all of the systems on the boat, and I do mean all. So, we are running engines, appliances, watermakers, electronics, etc, etc.

The tide swings at the lower end of the Bay of Fundy are 22-29 ft. now, and the currents can run 7-8 knots. The combination of tidal current, and an opposing wind, can create some enormous swells. That's what we had all afternoon and night. It too was part of the test. We want white water all over the boat to show up any weak spots in the paint, which will evidence themselves as rust by the time we return in a week.

So far some minor items have surfaced, indicator lights not working, a 12V to 24V battery inverter malfunction- ing. But the boat performs very well; it is safe and stable, even in the 10-15 ft seas last night. We made a tempo- rary stop today to get the leak and the 12V-24V inverter repaired.

All for now -B

LOG: May 8, 2000

We are back at Meteghan wharf; the past few days have each been distinctly different. The night of the 5th was somewhat easy, wave and swell heights less than two feet. The two fisherman who are my cohorts on the sea-
trial, contacted some of their friends and we will meet them at the south end of St. Mary's Bay on the Bay of Fundy side on the morning of the 6th. They provided us with lobster and scallops just caught; I have never tasted better.

By the afternoon of the 6th, the weather had improved to sunny and calm. We went up to Digby, entered the harbor, and tested the anchoring capability. No problems. We discovered earlier that during the first nights blow, the exhaust stack from the diesel furnace worked loose and almost went overboard. In near dead calm, we traveled across the Bay of Fundy to the Saint John, NB area and then back to Parkers Cove on Digby neck. The sea was flat, like glass. The night passed uneventfully.

The next day started out with reasonable weather, but was predicted to have rain, and increasing wind moving from the northeast to the southwest and then west. I was warned that this, combined with the ebbing "Big Tide" as it is called (28- 29 ft), occurring at the same time, would create really interesting conditions. It did! By five o'clock we were in ten-foot seas with winds gusting to 40 knots. I was warned that the combination of wind and tide, with the narrow passage we were heading into, would make things worse yet. It did!

Coming through the passage, about two miles, the seas were still head on, at about 15-20 ft. The wind was 35-40 knots, and we were making about 7 kts headway. We were taking water over the wheelhouse with every swell, and every once in a while, we went through the wave, rather than over them.

The boat is magnificent! It is extremely stable, solid, and gives no sign of distress. Not a creak or groan. The two seasoned salts, veterans of George's Bank, etc., made the comment, “she's a real boat, we would take her anywhere, in any kind of weather.”

The remaining ten miles to Meteghan were more of the same. We arrived just after dark, to a full basin of fishing vessels. Thank goodness for the Thrustmaster and the bow thruster, it made life easy. We will repair the water maker if possible on the 8th, and get underway again.

That's all for now -B

LOG: May 11, 2000

The sea trials ended last night, when we returned to the shipyard at Meteghan River, at about 5 PM. The stabilizers worked fine, we tested them in the Bay of Fundy in a tidal rip, both with and against swells of 15-18 ft, in winds gusting to 40 knots.

One thing this trip gave me was the confidence that not just on paper, but in reality, this boat is built for safety and stability.

One of the engine startup batteries proved to be defective, and that will be replaced. We were unable to get the water- maker to function properly. However, it's under warranty so we’ll get someone on it today.

On Wednesday night, after a pounding out in Fundy, we came back into St. Mary's Bay to test the anchor in 35-knot winds. We anchored overnight with the aluminum Fortress, no problem. Now it's time to fix the items found, do the final painting, install carpets, upholstery, and tabletops, and take delivery.

My guess is departure in two weeks. That's all for now - B [Owner Hull #7]

The reason I didn't call anyone in on the stability after sea trial is because I had been on an extensive sea trial when the 2nd owner purchased her 6 years earlier. Yes, we did hard-overs as is standard on all sea trials. I had heard about problems with captains, steering (captains replacing the steering arms I believe), and stabilzers for 2 years. NONE of these issues were present at my sea trial nor when the "new" owner took her to the Caribbean for a season. I knew it would be a matter of the proper mechanical assessment and repair. I also knew no one wanted to hear the broker's simple solution: get the right mechanics, not ones hired by a donation company with a part-time out of town captain.

Altogether an UGH! Judy. Bad story.

Wish I was paying more attention but maybe there was nothing I could have done even if you had called for help. Or was I even around?

I would have tried Wesmar however from anywhere on earth: "C'mon guys we standardized on your stabilizers and we had an iron-clad agreement of super-instant-worldwide-service. Now act upon it." I'd have tried to dig out my ancient contract with them.

Way back then, I had abandoned the competition (who was it again? biggest brand at the time escapes me ...) because their bow thruster had issues on one early hull and getting help made pulling teeth look easy. Wesmar promised to trip over themselves if we standardized on them. Their bow thruster was also much better.

Plus they did the architectural water-flow study on the bilge keels' design on their own product and suggested only minor mods. Chuck saw the study, every NA did. Wesmar's bottom line was to add a little more empty space the trailing end, the leading edge was a non-issue. There was nil effect at low speed, but 20% loss at top speed.

Wesmar was consistently good to work with so this bad instance is a downer.

Peter,

For 15 years, our discussions have remained free of manufacturer participation because those with a vested interest will often attempt to skew discussions. We have several hundred 'senior members' who have earned the designation by posting accurate, helpful and relevant information. Anyone posting inaccurate information will quickly be corrected by our senior members. It's a system of checks and balances by people with a passion for the resource we have collectively built.

While you are new to YF and maybe not familiar with how we conduct ourselves here, it's important to note we are gentlemen and do not resort to name calling, or specifically attacks. CaptJ is a very respected member of YachtForums and has made thousands of well-informed posts. He expressed his opinion based on feedback he's ascertained from others, as well as his own extensive experience as a yacht captain. That's what we do on forums; express our opinion, talk about our experience and hopefully help our readers to make better informed decisions. Occasionally we have disagreements, but we move on from there.

We welcome wisdom on YF. Our platform has continued to flourish because we are not laden with the mindless, brainless banter you see under a YouTube video. We have very respectable, educational discussions. However, when readers see retaliatory, condemning posts, they will go elsewhere. That behavior will quickly kill a forum. Short of locking this thread, let's stick to facts and take personal grievances out of the equation.

Done deal Carl, apologies for offending. Your site is superb, thanks for creating it.

When I see harmful falsehoods stated (vs legit opinions) I react, admittedly a tad personally in Cape J's case, for the benefit of my owners. Not a dime in it for me. Cape Horns are not being manufactured any longer. I'm not a broker either and I'm living in Philippines ... Call me "Yachtless in Manila."

It's just about true vs false facts and a handful of people unnecessarily making claims that might affect others' resale values. Rumours do get passed on as conventional wisdom.

Indeed I have not even opened your chatroom previously but others with vested interests 'pushed me into the ring" as it were, as stuff was being said that directly hurt resales.

My stated facts are indeed facts not sales pitch, am selling nothing and have no intent to start again.

However I totally respect you POV and will not insult anyone else.
Indeed if you wish for the sake of your fine site,
please feel free to take down any insulting posts you feel I made, that's totally legit and acceptable.

cheers -Peter

Let's not forget these boat are over 20 years old. No idea of maintenance especially if not with professional crew and owner willing to spend the money. One of these boats was in my marina several years ago. Owner became sick and asked my Captain to look after the boat. Nightmare job. Raw sewage in the bilge, electrical system a mess, engine problems, many other major problems. Was this maintenance, build problems or an old boat. Also no professional crew. As any boat ages it needs work. You can not just show up on Sunday and go. After a few months my Captain had to quit helping. She is a first class Captain, highly recommended, can fix anything. So the boats now might just be old. What happened in 2000 speaks about a boat in 2000, not now. Would look very carefully at any boat, of a good size, without professional crew. Also if a boat is given to a donation company, usually because it is a very hard or impossible to sell. Have to ask the question why?? Sure you get a write off but cash is still better.
Boats given to donation companies often are low in price BUT have failed multiple sea trials and surveys. You get what you pay for most of the time, buyer beware especially with a boat. You will not be happy with your bargain donation boat, when you spend $15,000 on survey and sea trial and have to walk away. You can ask one of the contributors to this line of posts.

Mr Sever,
I reread these posts. #1 Are you an engineer with a college degree ? I am with both college, masters and almost Phd. I assume when Chuck had someone do the structural weight and balances, the plans were stamped by that person or company. If not, they should have been. Navel architects are not trained to do those calculations. They are architects NOT engineers. Chuck, I assume has professional insurance. Also hard to believe that any engineering firm does not have professional insurance. If they made a mistake, we all do, that should have been covered by insurance. As to tank testing, did you request it at your expense? If not, why not? Many years ago, I had Chuck design a boat for me, never built. In the contract was cost estimate for architect, engineer and TANK TESTING. Let's hear the entire story.

Sorry. A college degreed Naval Architect is the recipient of an Engineering degree and can perform structural , hydrodynamic, thermodynamic and mechanic calculations. They have the ability to get a state Prefessional Engineering stamp as well.
Webb, Michigan, MIT, Cal, New Orleans , the Naval and Coast Guard Academy are just a few universities that issue degrees in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering , the full name of the degree. There are other universities in Canada, UK and Europe as well as other countries. These are true engineering degrees, distinct from the Westlawn and other online design school degrees.

Sure, but since Chuck gave out the work, you would assume that he did not have the degree.

Possibly, but your statement that Naval Architects are not Engineers is false information in the case of University degreed Naval Architects, especially those with state Professional Engineer licenses.

Lenny thanks for your questions: Of course we tank-tested each model before offering it for sale, both in-tank and electronically. I would never build a boat without taking every sensible engineering precaution. Theory is one thing ... We used the top engineering people in Newfoundland which in my experience seems to produces some of best, at Memorial U. I'd give you the name of the firm but I cannot put my hands on it 20 years later in Philippines ... Later on they even did a mission-specific engineering job on our bulbous bows and changed the shapes.

Why do you jump to Chuck's defence on his weight miscalculation? We all make mistakes, it just Teflon finger-pointing I dislike. Ultimately every problem was mine, I was president after all. Who else to blame and of course I fixed everyone else's issues at my sole expense - Chuck's included.

Chuck's contracted obligation (as with all my NA's) was to hand over buildable drawings ready for steel nesting. It's one thing to draw a pretty picture, but quite another to draw a buildable superior-performing one. Chuck's drawings as I recall were superb in all our estimations and top professional quality. If the boat's aesthetic lines were not 100% as pretty as I'd have preferred, they were 90% and other things were great. I had zero complaints and we paid him promptly. After the usual back-forth tweaking -- and if I recall correctly 3D modelling/digital testing by the specialists - we sold three at a time (it was my limit for logistical reasons) and started cutting steel.

Then once the hull and superstructure were well advanced in raw steel I asked Chuck to work out some stability question for me. I think (not certain however) it had to do with one customer insisted on heavy teak decks vs much lighter MarineDeck composite which we provided as standard equipment due functional and financial reasons. That's when Chuck called me with his "oops" - his engineer had miscalculated the superstructure weight. It was out by a lot, enough that we had to add some serious functional ballast and change through-hull locations. On all three boats. And now I was nervous as can be about performance effects, the extra draught was some 6" more than contracted. I had some crow-eating to do with customers.

Turns out in 20/20 to have not been a problem in performance and the boats handled superbly in sea trials and subsequently for 2 decades of use. Whew. The draught is what it is so in the Keys and Bahamas for example, watch the depth gauge is all I can say.

My academic qualifications? Horrible. I have an MBA ("Master of Bugger All" I like to call it) specializing in Arts Management: Classical music, ballet museum -type stuff, which in fact I did for 15 years. You on the other hand have an engineering degree almost a "Pile it Higher and Deeper" one in fact. That's a joke about both our degrees, don't be offended, I worship engineers and am a decent amateur one myself. Just happen have the instincts and do a lot of design and building of things, invent stuff even now. University-wise you're a million times more qualified to engineer boats than I am and perhaps one of our NA's might wisely have hired you -- or one of the top testing facilities I used. Their call totally. I left details to specialists just as I did the many other highly-skilled trades involved.

An amateur engineer cum arts manager? Yup. One of many things I invented on boats was our bilge keels, just for example. No one had ever done this multi-purpose stability trick with active fins before me, that I've heard. Then I hired true experts and tank testers to tell me if they might work in water flow terms. Turns out yes, a passive 25% roll reduction at all speeds even at anchor, wow, high five lucky me! Even Wesmar's highly-specialized experts loved them as glass fin protection albeit at a projected 20% loss in effectiveness of active fins at higher speeds, not at slow speeds. As did my 300 boat-years of owners as evidenced by the fact that none has ever removed them, even though I made sure they were easily removable with no hull damage. So my owners got a freebie that was readily reversible. At my modest expense.

Chuck included them in his design and never quarrelled that I can recall because I sure would have listened! But now he badmouths them even to customers. Because he didn't think of them I assume and they are my IP. As are a few things in that boat he tries too sell. But he doesn't have the latest plans. Too bad. I have warned him in writing too, against using my IP for his own gain. He didn't even have the good manners to ask before taking credit for the Cape Horn brand - which have several models of the same basic architectural design.

Read my book on the subject, I bet you'll like it being a naval engineer. Ask me, I'll send you a free copy by email. No engineers or NA's have ever challenged any of my theories , observations or research. If they would have I would have changed my POV due superior knowledge.

Chuck was replaced due his errors and aesthetic issues. Plus shamefully in my view, he never bothered to get on one of my boats at sea, he just didn't care enough how they worked in action. Plus most important is, I was approached by the superb Sparkman and Stephens late-great Mich Neff why was an admirer of what we were doing, Mitch wanted to get into trawlers and picked us, I was soooo flattered to get the call and a partnership was born. I called Chuck to explain but he had nothing negative to say.

So this MBA engineering amateur was partners with one of the oldest-best NA firms ever -- indeed the oldest in America if memory serves. Wow did they improve the boats and how ... but then I sold the brand and the story ends. It ends sadly, very much so.

Thanks for listening.

AHA! I SUDD

AHA! The name just popped into my old brain -- Lenny you asked about my non-existent academic engineering qualifications! Well, here's perhaps the best raw engineering brain I found: The superb commercial-engineering consulting team we used for tank testing on some hulls, and then bulbous bow re-design - the latter is an actual specialty. We took Chucks' simple tube design (which we used on all previous hulls) on the 75-82 and stepped it up a big notch via Poseidon. It became more costly to build but markedly better.

If anyone is even a one-off builder and wants to save a lot of shopping around, use this company. They're not merely 'good', they have done 'brilliantly' in the highly demanding, competitive and substantive east coast commercial world. The North Atlantic year-round commercial world is not child's play. Five stars for engineering and honesty. No attitude.

Plus they are Newfoundlanders which makes them my favourite North Americans. What a great island that province is, in both stunning geography and tough honest human character. (Have ridden it 5 times on motorbike alone!)

Indeed a disproportionate number of Cape Horn's in-house engineering staff were Newfoundlanders from Memorial U. One remains my personal friend even a couple decades later and we designed/built some cool motorcycle parts together, still currently on the market.

Here's a free no-hesitation engineering recommendation. Let someone with an eye for yachts design it. Then send the raw CAD to Poseidon for proving every detail - plus in-water and simulations tweaking. Modestly priced and money extremely well invested.

http://www.pmcl.ca/services/

I admire your passion, as it is truly necessary to succeed in this Industry.

I would caution that statement as there is a lot of scientific data (Tank Testing/Analytical) on the topic. Degreed NA's from North America and Europe have spent a lot of effort on this topic, as more resistance = more fuel = more cost, especially for commercial trawler fleets, etc. You may not have access to all the technical documentation from the professional societies around the globe but I can assure you the topic has been well studied. Are you saying that you Tank Tested your hull form in both hard chine and radius'd (bilge) chine configurations and compared the two for resistance data? There are a few Dutch NA firms that have done/are doing the same studies with technical data for the public.

Comparing ultra-light aboriginal canoes/kayaks is a bit off topic when we are talking about heavy true displacement craft. The design of slender, narrow length/beam light weight craft is a whole different topic, and yes, NA's have scientific studies on them even going back to the academic/scholastic Concrete Canoe competition days. Stability is relevant for sure, so is ease of construction, and if Inuit's had to paddle a bit more forceful, not sure they would ultimately be concerned with that trade-off?

There is a George L. Petrie December 2000 PMY review of the 65 CH floating around on the Google open seas, highlighting some concerns that have been addressed in your follow-on next generation products. Granted that production building is a series of continuous improvements, and there seems to be a design evolution for the CH Line (original NA, CN than S&S), how was that boat review experience for you in terms of planning for next generation models?

Finally, I looked at the picture of the Bilge Keels, which really look like more clever hydrodynamic Stabilizer Guards with a built in function of keeping the vessel level during a grounding. Nice idea, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words: