Sea Ray L590

We are now completely drifting from the thread subject, but just to explain what I meant, it isn't the Absolute decision that I called trivial, it's the real world difference between Cat A and B.

Far from wishing to open a can of worms, but what I mean by real world difference can be summarized as follows.
CE certification has always been much more a marketing tool than anything else, because most pleasure motorboats certified as Cat A wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell to survive for any meaningful amount of time an "almost hurricane" sea state.
Remember, Cat A is NOT restricted to 40 kts of wind and 13 feet of waves, because it specifically includes ALSO anywhere between that and "abnormal conditions such as hurricanes".
Now, as I recall we already discussed this in the past, and you agreed that you would never even think to go out there with any of your Cat-A boats (like the Riva or the Manhattan) and test them in almost hurricane conditions.
And neither would anyone else in his right mind, obviously.

BUT, as a matter of fact, complying with Cat-A prescriptions and getting the boat certified is not difficult at all, even for boats that would make all of us ROTFL at the idea that they could survive Cat-A conditions.
To my knowledge, back in the late 90s, one of the first builders (if not THE very first builder) who thought to ride the RCD classification wave for marketing purposes was a rather small Italian one, Raffaelli.
They decided to get all the boats in their range Cat-A certified, in order to write that all over their stand at Genoa boat show, and that's exactly what they did. Including the smaller boat in their range, the so-called Shamal (just google for it, if you want to have a laugh): a pure open boat of 40 feet which I wouldn't want to cruise with in 8' waves, let alone in 13+ feet and 40+ knots.
Most other builders followed shortly afterwards, because obviously they didn't want to lose potential sales to any punter who was buying the concept that a 40' open boat is as safe as a SAR vessel.

Now, fast forward to present days, there's a bit of a dilemma all builders are facing.
In fact, all of them, bar none, are fully aware that there's no such thing as a pleasure motorboat that could realistically survive Cat-A sea conditions.
Ok, possibly aside from a small handful of vessels like Nordhavns (just to make the most popular example, though there are imho even better and safer boats in the tiny niche of passagemakers), but let's leave these boats aside, because they are very far from representing the pleasure boat market.
So, what drives the decision of a boatbuilder to get their vessel certified as A or B is a very simple question: do we privilege the possible preference of some buyers for A vs. B, or do we distance ourselves from the risks involved in case of accidents, possibly involving casualties, where someone might go legal because the real boat capabilities were obviously nowhere near those claimed by her certification?

See, THIS is what trigger the decision of getting the boat Cat-A or B certified, and neither the technicalities nor the costs involved have anything to see with that. They do exist, mind, but are trivial - as demonstrated by Raffaelli and their Shamal toy boat.

Lastly, note that I always mentioned builders "getting their boats certified as A or B", as opposed to "building their boats to A or B specs".
In fact, you could as well build the strongest SAR vessel of the planet, but apply for a Cat B (or even lower) certification, and that's what you will get from the certifying institute, even if it would be obvious to their inspectors that the boat deserves a higher certification.
In other words, for all we know, Absolutes Navettas could well be built to Cat A specs even if they are "only" Cat B certified.
Not that I'm saying Navettas are as good or better than Magellanos, mind.
In fact, I would also prefer the latter if given a choice only between them, but for totally different reasons, that have nothing at all to see with their RCD classification, which is not much more than a practical joke.

Of course it's your (as well as anyone else's) choice - a choice I never pretended to influence, let alone change.
But funnily, you are actually supporting my previous point nicely: I did say that whenever builders apply for Cat-A, it's strictly because they don't want to lose any sale to those who consider that a relevant factor, and your thoughts prove that their concerns are valid.
Nothing inherently right or wrong in this, and no need to agree.

BTW, I'm not against certifications in absolute terms, it's just the RCD that I think is overrated to say the least.
You might be unaware that back in the early 90s, well before the RCD became mandatory in EU, Ferretti used to design their boats according to C class cross of Malta specs, building them under Bureau Veritas certification.
And having seen many of these, and also of the more recent ones Cat-A certified, I know which type of certification I'd rather go for.

You're not telling me anything new. I'm fully aware that there are buyers who consider this important, and as I already said this is what triggers the decision of many builders to apply for cat A.
That's a fully respectable decision, from both viewpoints - buyers and builders.
The only trick that most of the former are missing is that for the latter it's a marketing, rather than a technical decision.
But hey, after all we live in a world where jetliners are sent out to carry people without even explaining pilots all their features...

This is the crux of the matter.
Can you name any of these differences which you rate as relevant - let alone "HUGE"?
Those I am aware of are laughable when considered alone, and borderline irrelevant even when put all together.
Hint: on any given boat, there are ZERO differences in hull lamination schedule between A and B, to start with.

Sorry but this is plain wrong, because that's not how the certification process works.
A boat can indeed be 100% Cat.A compliant, but get Cat.B certification simply because that's what the builder applied for.
And I'm aware of cases where this is exactly what happened.
If you think that boatbuilders build their boats first, and then hope for the best certification they can get, well, think again.

OB, most of what I said was just highlighting facts rather than opinions/positions, so I'm struggling a bit at understanding what exactly you don't agree with.

That said, for balance, I will add another consideration.
When I said that I'm aware of boats whose construction was fully compliant with each and every Cat A requirement (and then some), but Cat B certified just because that's what the builder applied for, I meant it. But they are exceptions, of course.
What generally happens is that builders decide to go for the design category which they feel is more consistent with their products, their brand image, and their clients expectations.
So, it comes with the territory that a large group like Beneteau, traditionally targeting the mass market with boats whose build strength reminds of yogurt pots, doesn't care one bit at getting them Cat A certified - simply because neither their clients do.
But make no mistakes: whenever they are targeting clients who do expect Cat A, as is the case with their own Monte Carlo line, they get it - no big deal.

In other words, if I should make a sweeping generalization, it is true that Cat A boats are better than Cat B boats.
But NOT because they must be better built to meet the design category requirements - that does not matter one iota.
They are better (and more expensive) boats because they are aimed at a higher segment of the market, which happens to expect also Cat A, so they get it.
It's that simple.
I already mentioned an example of one of the earliest, smallest and cheapest Cat A certified boats - did you google for her?
And if you did, just by looking at some photos and without knowing anything else, would you rather be out in rough water with her or with a Galeon/Prestige/Navetta/whatever?

As another example, since you are familiar with the construction of modern Rivas, Ferrettis and Sunseeker (all Cat A).
Have you ever inspected an early 90s Sanlorenzo, built before CE-RCD even existed?
If yes, which boats would you consider safer and stronger, those of the current ilk, or the 30yo SLs?
And if not, you wouldn't regret having a look at an old SL62/72/82, and lift some hatches, just out of curiosity.
Trust me, that would be enough to give a whole new meaning to the saying "They don't make them like they used to"...

Care to point me to where I labelled your (or anyone else's) comments as "worse than opinions", whatever that means?