Marquis Sport yachts or similar

Case in point is the Azimut 55S. We're talking a Coupe and 3 x 435's. Range at cruise based on 90% is only 218 miles. Fuel at WOT 1.9 gpnm and at cruise of 20 knots it's 1.8 gpnm. At 12 knots very little better, but at 9.6 knots it drops to 1 gpnm. Only 423 gallons of fuel. And you're not even talking a heavy or truly large boat. On the other hand, some of the economy and performance on 40-50 foot boats is very impressive. The small fuel tanks on so many boats is perhaps my pet peeve.

As to MaxPower's point on his dealer, to me it's not just the service you can get in your local area, but that you can get while cruising. I figure if you're cruising 60-80% of your problems and service issues are going to occur away from home. There the network of service providers and the availability of both trained persons and parts becomes the key issue.

The Hatteras 60MY can be had with a lower helm. You can also choose to have interior access to the bridge in addition to the aft stairs from the aft deck. But the version without the interior stairs really opens the boat up. Seeing as we have got along great with just aft deck stairs on our older 56MY, I could live with that. Another way to do the lower helm is to just have engine controls/thruster and gauges, an auto pilot remote and small electronics second combo unit. No steering wheel or big electronics. The 60 MY is my favorite of the new generation Hatts. Great lay out and ergonomics. Gotta love it when one of the decisions you have to make is where to put the basketball hoop in the engine room:

I agree. Fuel consumption is often cited as a major factor in the purchase decision for boats and planes. Yet, in reality, it's a much smaller percentage of operating costs than people think.

Let's assume 200 hours per year at cruise speed. For my boat, 75 gallons per hour, at $4 per gallon, = $60,000 per year in fuel. "If" pods saved 20%, that's $12k per year in fuel savings. In the larger context of yacht operating costs, $12k is negligible.

If I were buying a new boat, I'd buy straight shafts. I've heard good stories about pods, and I've heard bad stories. One bad story was of a 2012 boat with three engines. That bad story would eat up $12k in about a day. Straight shafts are time proven, simple, and well understood by most all service operations.

In my opinion, the risks of pods would not outweigh the potential benefits.

Purely an opinion, of course.

Yes, I know it can be. Just the fact those sitting already built don't have the lower helm. For us, it's important enough to wait. You don't give up all that much either. The dinette still seats the same number, you just forfeit some small cabinets that are to the side of it. Also many of those already built haven't had crew cabins and we see that as an oversight. Obviously this eliminates the basketball hoop. Our biggest modification, if we get one, will be an electric hinged arch. Not anything that revolutionary as many other builders have done that.

I think the fact Captains love Hatteras and especially this model is a strong point too. Now the fact I'm from NC and you're there could make us a little prejudiced.

I ran my alternative lower helm scheme by a Hatteras guy, he said that would be pretty easy to do and keep 95%+ of the no-lower-helm area intact.
In fact it would not be all that dear to retrofit a no-lower-helm boat in such a manner. Heck when we are cruising I am just laid back with the autopilot remote near one hand steering with the little knob as necessary.

Since we don't need crew, I am much more attracted to using the space as a utility room. I don't see how the crew cabin would impinge on the hoop. but have never looked closely at that option. Our biggest beef is the aft deck is too small, would like to take another foot or two out of the salon. By the way, our boat has a hydraulic arch. Hatteras definitely knows how to do that. Is there a particular fixed bridge you are trying to get under (Chicago, Lake Champlain?). Remember, all these things are only limited by your imagination and your checkbook.

Bridge is Chicago, the famous 19' 1". Well, on the 60' you can go full lower helm and keep 95% in tact. A helm and captain's seat just don't take up much space. It's a standard offering, just one of those not being built often. See your point about the aft deck. I think keeping an open bridge, convertible bridge, helps offset that with more open space.

I would go with the Hydraulic hardtop and strataglass. I've done the great loop and even in the summer time it can be pretty cold on the water up there, definately windy, and running the boat from a lower helm is not feasible unless you are in open water, not in many of the rivers and erie canal on the Great Loop etc. A convertible/open bridge is darn near worthless most of the time. Can't a/c it, too cold, too wet, and the list goes on and on. It's showing a height of 19'9 to top of arch from the waterline. That bridge in Chicago, the minimum clearance is 19'2 but it's usually a foot or more clearance than 19'2. What about a hardtop that's fixed but not attached to the arch, and a retractable arch bringing all of your electronics down with it. That would probably get you below 19'2 and not have to remove eisinglass or any of that.

That being said, Hatteras will add the lower helm pretty reasonably if you take the boat to them. Have you called and ask them? You'd have plenty of time to get the boat to New Bern, have the work done, and depart in April/May for the Erie Canal. I had an owner interested in an '06 80' Hatteras MY out of Dubai back in 2009 that had 4 bunks in the VIP and 3 bunks in the 3rd stateroom. It was a Prince's boat and he had a lot of wives. They quoted me $30k to turn the vip back to a queen, and the 3rd stateroom back to normal, including woodwork, bedding,cabinetry, carpeting and everything. I felt that was pretty darn reasonable, the owner never ended up buying the boat, but the price was dropped to $2 million when his new Westport 112' hit Dubai and it sold immediately.

Still working on some of the details and actually what we're aiming for is very near what you suggest, which is adjustable hardtop with Eisenglass. A bit complex because of our unique requirements but will end up with the ability to heat/cool and enclose. The hardtop itself is not so heavy that it can't be handled reasonably easy either. Several different options are being designed and checked. Actually some are quite interesting and better than our initial anticipation.

Just to give you an idea. First idea was folding arch and canvas top. But then folding arch and hardtop. Some ideas included mechanisms for hardtop much like auto hardtops, but we didn't want weight to get too high. Then You look at different materials for the hardtop. Next an idea was to fold arch and then fold top backwards, off the windshield pillars. One other idea was to make neither arch nor top folding but on hydraulic cylinders so that they could be brought straight down. That would require either Eisenglass up front or a folding windshield or some combination. Got all involved into thinking completely outside the box to come up with the most practical solution assuming that we'll probably not utilize lowering it more than three or four times in it's life, that we want to retain a strong structure, and want riding conditions on the bridge to be the best possible. We would like a sunroof opening too ideally. Even among the ideas has been making the entire top sliding and then collapsible or making it in more than one section. Right now we're just sitting back and letting others pursue their ideas. More than one is workable, but determining the best is worth a bit of extra time and expense.

Yes, you're correct that there's always the possibility of clearing the bridge by removing all electronics. But actually it's far easier to lower them with the arch as you suggest than to remove them.

We're willing to wait for a build as we want. Actually we don't want to do the loop in 2014 anyway. We have some other things in mind first, primarily using a different boat. We do hope to spend much of the summer in the Northeast. The only major modifications we're making are choosing the lower helm option and the crew cabin option, which aren't really modifications, just standard options, plus the arch and roof. Plus we are going to have a unique paint job.

The thing is that although we're doing several modifications, we're not doing anything structural, nothing to the hull or major components other than the standard they've built several times already.

The modifications for the other boat we're intending to order are a bit simpler and nothing the builder hasn't done in the past. We still hope to actually have orders placed by the end of January for both. But meanwhile right now we're on a charter anchored off a private Bahama island and enjoying the moonlight and stars as we get ready to sleep on the top deck.

I would go with a fixed hardtop and you don't have to mess with the eisinglass either, and the arch seperate from the hardtop and have the arch hydraulically lower to the rear of the boat leaving all of the electronics attached and everything on the arch.

I'd never put too much stock in one test, but a test was done of three propulsion systems on a 36' Hunt. The systems were 435 hp Volvo Diesels, 300 hp IPS's and 435 hp Volvo Diesel Jets.

Unfortunately, the IPS had a hardtop so was slightly heavier. However, at WOT the Diesels ran 39 knots and made .93 nmpg. At cruising speed of 33 knots it got 1.31 nmpg and at 27 knots got 1.68 nmpg.

At WOT the IPS ran 34 knots and made 1.18 nmpg, at cruising of 30 knots it got 1.42 nmpg and at cruising of 23 knots it got 1.53 nmpg.

So at comparable speeds in this single test, the Inboard Diesels were more efficient than the IPS.

Now for nearer displacement speeds. The Inboards got 1.90 nmpg at 11.2 knots and 5.33 nmpg at 8 knots. The IPS got 1.64 nmpg at 9.7 knots and 3.65nmpg at 7.3 knots.

So the surprise to all that was that at comparable speeds the inboards were actually more efficient than the IPS.

Now I'm not making a blanket statement of any sort. But what I am saying is that we generally don't have comparable boats to compare. Often the IPS boats we see are lighter boats or narrower beams and so the efficiency advantages we think we're seeing appear greater than they are. Now, similarly if IPS is put on a boat designed for IPS it is likely to do better than it would for a boat not so designed. Maybe the Hunt isn't well designed for them. But just the warning not to compare a 63' Marquis to a 60' Hatteras as the Marquis will consume less fuel even if it had comparable engines due to design and weight. One must look at all aspects. Similarly don't compare finish and other quality aspects between a $2 million boat and a $3 million one or similar size. It really comes down to a combination of factors.

Personally, I love jet drives. Everything else being equal I would strongly lean to them. However, not in any of the size and type boats I've contemplated have I found a jet that met our needs as well as other drives. (Well, except tenders). For instance, I love the speed and the shallow draft of an AB 68 but in general we just didn't like the boat as much as a Riva 63'. Similarly I might like a brand of engine more than another brand but then the boat I really like comes with the brand I like less.

One goes in thinking they want one specific engine or drive or other feature, but then ultimately you have to look at the entire picture. Also, as this Hunt test shows, you go in thinking IPS must be more efficient, yet in that incident it isn't. Same with issues like space. In very few cases am I comparing different drives in the same boat as to available space. I'm comparing entirely different boats and ultimately what I care about is the available space and if it was achieved by IPS then that's great but if the IPS boat doesn't ultimately have the space of another entirely different boat then it doesn't matter to me.

I think our own personal needs and preferences come into focus as we look, evaluate, and listen and compare. They may or may not end up as we thought they would at the start. Other factors come into play. Our favorite design in a 100' is made by a company we wouldn't purchase from. Same thing in the 55-60' range. We love the layouts but not other things.

Problem there is to get bridge clearance have to lower hardtop. The standard hardtop and height is higher than the arch. Still may make sense, just means relinquishing some head room and vision.

Ultimately it will be a compromise and it's choosing the best from the options. One option remains get standard hardtop and do loop except for Chicago bridge. Do a big U. Go to bridge and back both clockwise and counterclockwise. That however leads to a wrong way trip up the Mississippi, although that upper area of Mississippi and Illinois would probably not merit return trips anyway.

I would just find a way to get the top down......If you go straight down with the hardtop, it probably only needs to go down a foot...... would definately not go up the Mississippi, just with the debris alone. You could always flood the bilges to bring the boat down 6" hehehe....I did that for the bridge on the Erie Canal in a 63' Ocean many years ago......that would be the easiest.

Well, you obviously start by just filling all the tanks. Maybe find some people to ride through with you. Before I'd flood the bilges I'd just get some weights of some sort. But there are several options that will work. We'll pick a system that works best the rest of the time even if it requires a lot of effort to lower for the bridge. Think of it like a sailboat stepping a mast down. Worst case we get to Chicago, check clearance. If it's too low, park it, fly home, head back when there's enough. One advantage too is that one generally is coming through at the end of the summer so water should be lower more than higher.

Funny how much problem from one bridge for so many potential boaters. With all the bridges replaced with taller over the years, nothing ever happens there. There are tons of boats that fit fine though, just we do think it's worth the extra effort to have the one we want.

For us it's also not to say we've done the loop, but it is to experience so many of the marvelous areas along the way and the pleasure so many loopers have had. It's also such a uniquely different experience than the coast. Once we get around to the Tennessee we'll probably leave the boat inland for a year or so. Or if not, we'll certainly go back to that area to explore the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio. Similarly we want to over time enjoy the Great Lakes as well.

Depend on definition of "motor yacht." Often, that's used to describe an aft-cabin layout, usually with no cockpit, usually with a forward helm... and I don't see an easy way to do any serious fishing from those. Not to say casual fishing isn't possible...

OTOH, a sportfish or "convertible" (may or may not be called a "motor yacht") has the cockpit designed for fishing and the helm is further aft.... so folks on the bridge can be handing rods from upper rocket launchers down to the cockpit crew when there's fish on, receiving rods for inserting in the rocket launchers after lines are deployed, control while backing down, etc.

That aft helm location tends to improve visibility for stern-to docking, also.

-Chris

I've heard of boat simply being hauled, transported by land around that bridge, and then splashed on the other side. Don't know what size limitation might have applied...

-Chris

On the ocean, we filled the fish boxes, livewell, and lazarette etc. and it brought us down about 8". 10" of freshwater in the bilge from a garden hose won't hurt anything and a heck of a lot easier to load and unload than weights. Obviously you start with full fuel and water tanks. Once you pass the bridge you just turn all of the bilge pumps back on and wait 20 mins.

The 50' F+S had IPS and was a good running boat, I was docked next to the Captain for a few days and we talked a lot. He showed me the entire boat. Personally I wouldn't go with an IPS SF, too much wash from the exhaust. And, they never seem to sit still at the dock because the exhaust wash seems to move them around. I'd prefer Zues on a SF with the typical exhaust out of the transom like Cabo did it. If you run any SF below hull speed it's going to be very efficient. The other advantage of Zues is you can change all of the fluids from inside of the boat. The IPS you have to haul the boat to change the gear fluid on them.

On the 40' Cabo express, the boat with 800 mans and shafts cruises at 31 knots @ 62 gph, with the 600hp zues it cruises at 32 knots @ 45 gph......everything else the same......so there are big fuel savings to be had.....Geting them serviced in far away locations should be another consideration.

It is a very heavily used railroad bridge. Ain't gonna raise it or put in a working drawbridge.

I would agree that they are apparently not going to, at least in our lifetimes.