Ron, Both you and Brian have brought up intriguing notions of somehow altering the bulb and putting a fine entry on the bottom. I have no idea why this hasn't been tried. I doubt if it would change the advantages of a bulb much. I do know that it is way beyond my expertise and probably pocketbook to try something like that, but it's still intriguing and thought provoking. There also has to be a percentage of naval architecture that comes under the heading of trial and error. Phil Eslinger

Phil/Ron et al, take a look a Gold Coast Yachts, http://www.goldcoastyachts.com , for an alternative for power multihull bows. They've built many of these cats for commercial use both big and small. They only use them on the ferry/commercial hulls not on the offshore MS hulls. Cheers Dave & Nancy Swan Song Roughwater 58 Tortola, BVI

Their error, your trial! {8^0) I don't think that modifying it would be expensive IF you did not engage anyone to design it. How about a mandrel made of wood in the shape of a "V" on the bottom. Make it of solid wood and fiberglass it in place with epoxy it in place. Use fairing compound to blend it into the hull and shape the forward end of the wood "V" so that is was somewhat shallower in front. If it doesn't work, it would be easy to cut it off. In fact, if the only thing holding it in place was woven roving and mat on the side and fore and aft, you could cut it off with a cutoff wheel. We are experimenting after all. If it works, epoxy and/or 5200 it in place. I get the impression that some #1 trawler hulls from custom builders come back on the market with disturbing frequency - no names. I guess that they did not meet owner expectations or they had outright design flaws. I'm surprised that Northern Marine or Delta hasn't experimented with this. Maybe their monster hulls don't slap? Ron Rogers Bulbous Designer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Eslinger" <pslinger@mindspring.com> | There also has to be a | percentage of naval architecture that comes under the heading of trial | and error.

Ron wrote: I'm surprised that Northern Marine or Delta hasn't experimented with this. Maybe their monster hulls don't slap? REPLY Don't kid yourself. They do tank test new models. Northern's design office has several tank test models sitting on tables, hanging from the ceiling or put in show cases for display. More are simply placed in storage. They just don't advertise the results since this is truly proprietary design knowledge. Acquired by payment of hard cash to the tank testing institutes. I should note that at least one BC designer began tank testing with four foot scale models towed in a pond. No doubt others have done the same. You can also do the same. Having at one time in a previous career incarnation worked as a model make I had notions of making such models to play with. But you know what happens to vast plans based on half vast ideas, especially said in a hurry. <VBG> Arild

> -----Original Message----- > > I'm surprised that Northern Marine or Delta hasn't > experimented with this. > Maybe their monster hulls don't slap? > On my Northern Marine hull the bulb slap is only noticed when the conditions are so uncomfortable that little improvement in comfort would be gained from eliminating it IMO. We're talking short steep headseas, folks, never comfortable on any hull. And it does reduce the possibility of the bow burying itself under green water, I believe. Hal [This E-mail was scanned for viruses.]

Dear Ron, As to your comment below about #1 hulls seeming to often be up for sale shortly after having been purchased. I can imagine that sometimes (perhaps often) the reason is just as you've suggested. However, I can tell you that I've bought several boats over the years that were either the first hull, or a very early hull number. In each case I ascertained for myself that the boat was well built (to the extend that I could ascertain that fact). And then I offered a LOW purchase price, but let known my willingness to have the boat exhibited at a boat show. Result? It's been my experience that one can negotiate a good enough price in the very early stages of a boat's production run that one can then use the boat for a year or two, thereafter reselling it for a PROFIT 12 to 24 months later. Here are some of the new-boat examples/prices that I can recall having engaged in: (a) Mid-1970s, bought hull #3 of a Bombay Clipper 31' for $45K. Two years later sold it for $65K (b) Early 1980s: bought hull #1 of the British-built Catfisher 32 for about $50K. Sold it about 18 months later for approximately $75K. (50% return on investment! But by that time, a new one was running about $95K). (c) Year 2000: bought Lagoon 380, hull #6, (sail) for about $145K (today they're about $275K); sold it 10 months later for $190K. (d) Year 2002: bought a new Maryland 37 (Fountaine Pajot power cat) for about $175K. Sold it 10 months later for $225K. (e) This past year I bought a new 40' fiberglass houseboat, also at an introductory price. Thereafter, the oil-price increase (and its effect on the price of aluminum, resin, etc.) raised this model's price substantially. I've now got it up for sale at a price nearly 30% above what I paid, and I expect I'll end up selling it for about 20% to 25% more than I paid. How might other readers benefit from this experience? First, the key is finding a boat that is a new model, and for which (ideally) the builder has NOT yet established a dealer network. Why? Oddly (yet very consistently) manufacturers are notoriously "weak" (a) when it comes to knowing what their first couple of hulls actually cost them, and (b) when it comes to negotiating prices. They are so eager to get that first hull or two sold. (Almost invariably they also are feeling the financial pinch of having funded the new boat's production, and may be cash-poor by the time they've got that first hull or two completed.) Plus, if you agree to let them exhibit the boat in a boat show, they then are often VERY willing to negotiate a super low price. On the other hand, this "leverage" is less common if the manufacturer is a large and sophisticated entity. And yet, even then (as noted above) I've found deals can be had. EXAMPLE 1: Currently, there's a northeast European built (around 61') yacht markedly underpriced at $1M (US). That boat should be going for at least $1.4M Interestingly, much as I've noted above: (a) it's a builder introducing a new line, (b) a builder who hasn't yet set up a dealer network, (c) who is very eager to have that first model shown in a U.S. boat show. I learned about this company when, about 2 years ago, I rode on a 75' one-off built by this yard. It was an impressive experience: Quality (US) equipment throughout, gorgeous finish, great ergonomics, etc. All in all, good value for the $3M asking price. So there's every reason to believe that this new "little sister" will be great, too. But again, it's underpriced. (Especially given that $1M [US] was the price prior to the past 18 months' 20% fall of the U.S. dollar vs. the Euro.) So, I predict by this time next year this "little sister" model will be close to $1.5M, in which case the person who buys the first one at $1M (maybe even less -- remember the leverage of the "boat show exhibition" ploy) would be able to enoy that yacht for a year or two, and THEN get a substantial return on his/her initial investment. EXAMPLE 2: Similarly, there's a Canadian company offering a new line of cruising power boats, yet to begin production, that are dramatically under priced. They seem to openly acknowledge that, for they're offering the first few hulls in what they call an "introductory tiered-pricing" structure. The first one is about $40K less than the 2nd, which is about $40K less than the third, which is $40K less than the 4th, and so on. I can imagine that the first few buyers of those yachts will be able to resell 1 to 3 years from now for substantially more than they paid. Of course, there's the possibility of a downside to this, too. I'd say that of most of those very-early models that I purchased above, that within six months of my purchase the manufacturers had noticably upgraded the interiors and improved those boats. And yet, as the numbers show, I didn't suffer any financially. Meanwhile, let's not forget the original "thread" of this reply. Ron is correct that some hull #1s can be pretty "rough." I saw hull number-1 of a new 40-plus-foot power cat at the October Annapolis powerboat show (Oct, 2004) that was a semi-disaster. Badly spaced and sized stairs into the hulls. Extremely poor ergonomics (in terms of bed size/accessibility, low door frames, uncomfortable seats, etc.). Rumor has it that the guy who ordered that hull #1 upon seeing the boat for the first time at the show refused it and demanded his money back. (I don't know the conclusion of that "drama".) So, one wants to be diligent about buying a boat that has yet to be built. But all of my experiences over the past 30 years with first-or-early-hull-numbers have worked out well. As the carney barker sez...."You pays yer monies, you takes yer chances." But it's also true that one can set up a purchase contract so that many of the most obvious potential problems can be avoided, while maximizing the price savings that I've mentioned above. Rod Gibbons Ron Rogers wrote: >Their error, your trial! {8^0) I don't think that modifying it would be >expensive IF you did not engage anyone to design it. How about a mandrel >made of wood in the shape of a "V" on the bottom. Make it of solid wood and >fiberglass it in place with epoxy it in place. Use fairing compound to blend >it into the hull and shape the forward end of the wood "V" so that is was >somewhat shallower in front. If it doesn't work, it would be easy to cut it >off. In fact, if the only thing holding it in place was woven roving and mat >on the side and fore and aft, you could cut it off with a cutoff wheel. We >are experimenting after all. If it works, epoxy and/or 5200 it in place. > >I get the impression that some #1 trawler hulls from custom builders come >back on the market with disturbing frequency - no names. I guess that they >did not meet owner expectations or they had outright design flaws. > >I'm surprised that Northern Marine or Delta hasn't experimented with this. >Maybe their monster hulls don't slap? > >Ron Rogers >Bulbous Designer > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phil Eslinger" <pslinger@mindspring.com> > >| There also has to be a >| percentage of naval architecture that comes under the heading of trial >| and error. > >_______________________________________________ >Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List > > >

Hey Rod - Your site has a PDF sales brochure that has the exact same verbiage as your last long-winded [PUP] post. You remember, the thinly veiled sales pitch on catamarans. Question: Which did you write first? The [PUP] post and copy it into the marketing brochure, or did you write the marketing brochure and copy it into your [PUP] post? Can we assume your recent monologue (below) will become part of the marketing brochure hawking a special pre-production pricing scheme? Gee, let me guess, you just happen to know where I can get a pre-production discount of say, $75,000 off what hulls 4 - 7 will go for? One correction - Grand Banks is not a producer of "Displacement" boats. Their semi-displacement hulls are quite capable of speeds in excess of 8 knots. You may want to put something else in the same 'displacement' category next to Nordhavn. I thought it was just a casual mistake in your [PUP] post but seeing it on a marketing brochure undermines your credibility. Lord knows we can't have that... Aren't there rules on this list about stuff like this? Can we at least keep it confined to the catamaran list? Cliff >From: Rod Gibbons <rodgibbons@mindspring.com> >Reply-To: rodgibbons@cruisingcatsusa.com, Passagemaking Under Power >List<passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> >To: Passagemaking Under Power >List<passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> >Subject: Re: [PUP] bulbous bows >Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:29:58 -0700 > >Dear Ron, > >As to your comment below about #1 hulls seeming to often be up for sale >shortly after having been purchased. I can imagine that sometimes >(perhaps often) the reason is just as you've suggested. However, I can >tell you that I've bought several boats over the years that were either >the first hull, or a very early hull number. In each case I ascertained >for myself that the boat was well built (to the extend that I could >ascertain that fact). And then I offered a LOW purchase price, but let >known my willingness to have the boat exhibited at a boat show. Result? >It's been my experience that one can negotiate a good enough price in >the very early stages of a boat's production run that one can then use >the boat for a year or two, thereafter reselling it for a PROFIT 12 to >24 months later. Here are some of the new-boat examples/prices that I >can recall having engaged in: > >(a) Mid-1970s, bought hull #3 of a Bombay Clipper 31' for $45K. Two >years later sold it for $65K > >(b) Early 1980s: bought hull #1 of the British-built Catfisher 32 for >about $50K. Sold it about 18 months later for approximately $75K. (50% >return on investment! But by that time, a new one was running about $95K). > >(c) Year 2000: bought Lagoon 380, hull #6, (sail) for about $145K >(today they're about $275K); sold it 10 months later for $190K. > >(d) Year 2002: bought a new Maryland 37 (Fountaine Pajot power cat) >for about $175K. Sold it 10 months later for $225K. > >(e) This past year I bought a new 40' fiberglass houseboat, also at an >introductory price. Thereafter, the oil-price increase (and its effect >on the price of aluminum, resin, etc.) raised this model's price >substantially. I've now got it up for sale at a price nearly 30% above >what I paid, and I expect I'll end up selling it for about 20% to 25% >more than I paid. > >How might other readers benefit from this experience? First, the key is >finding a boat that is a new model, and for which (ideally) the builder >has NOT yet established a dealer network. Why? Oddly (yet very >consistently) manufacturers are notoriously "weak" (a) when it comes to >knowing what their first couple of hulls actually cost them, and (b) >when it comes to negotiating prices. They are so eager to get that first >hull or two sold. (Almost invariably they also are feeling the financial >pinch of having funded the new boat's production, and may be cash-poor >by the time they've got that first hull or two completed.) Plus, if you >agree to let them exhibit the boat in a boat show, they then are often >VERY willing to negotiate a super low price. On the other hand, this >"leverage" is less common if the manufacturer is a large and >sophisticated entity. And yet, even then (as noted above) I've found >deals can be had. > >EXAMPLE 1: Currently, there's a northeast European built (around 61') >yacht markedly underpriced at $1M (US). That boat should be going for at >least $1.4M Interestingly, much as I've noted above: (a) it's a builder >introducing a new line, (b) a builder who hasn't yet set up a dealer >network, (c) who is very eager to have that first model shown in a U.S. >boat show. I learned about this company when, about 2 years ago, I rode >on a 75' one-off built by this yard. It was an impressive experience: >Quality (US) equipment throughout, gorgeous finish, great ergonomics, >etc. All in all, good value for the $3M asking price. So there's every >reason to believe that this new "little sister" will be great, too. But >again, it's underpriced. (Especially given that $1M [US] was the price >prior to the past 18 months' 20% fall of the U.S. dollar vs. the Euro.) >So, I predict by this time next year this "little sister" model will be >close to $1.5M, in which case the person who buys the first one at $1M >(maybe even less -- remember the leverage of the "boat show exhibition" >ploy) would be able to enoy that yacht for a year or two, and THEN get a >substantial return on his/her initial investment. > >EXAMPLE 2: Similarly, there's a Canadian company offering a new line of >cruising power boats, yet to begin production, that are dramatically >under priced. They seem to openly acknowledge that, for they're offering >the first few hulls in what they call an "introductory tiered-pricing" >structure. The first one is about $40K less than the 2nd, which is about >$40K less than the third, which is $40K less than the 4th, and so on. I >can imagine that the first few buyers of those yachts will be able to >resell 1 to 3 years from now for substantially more than they paid. > >Of course, there's the possibility of a downside to this, too. I'd say >that of most of those very-early models that I purchased above, that >within six months of my purchase the manufacturers had noticably >upgraded the interiors and improved those boats. And yet, as the >numbers show, I didn't suffer any financially. > >Meanwhile, let's not forget the original "thread" of this reply. Ron is >correct that some hull #1s can be pretty "rough." I saw hull number-1 of >a new 40-plus-foot power cat at the October Annapolis powerboat show >(Oct, 2004) that was a semi-disaster. Badly spaced and sized stairs into >the hulls. Extremely poor ergonomics (in terms of bed >size/accessibility, low door frames, uncomfortable seats, etc.). Rumor >has it that the guy who ordered that hull #1 upon seeing the boat for >the first time at the show refused it and demanded his money back. (I >don't know the conclusion of that "drama".) So, one wants to be diligent >about buying a boat that has yet to be built. But all of my experiences >over the past 30 years with first-or-early-hull-numbers have worked out >well. > >As the carney barker sez...."You pays yer monies, you takes yer >chances." But it's also true that one can set up a purchase contract so >that many of the most obvious potential problems can be avoided, while >maximizing the price savings that I've mentioned above. > >Rod Gibbons > > >Ron Rogers wrote: > > >Their error, your trial! {8^0) I don't think that modifying it would be > >expensive IF you did not engage anyone to design it. How about a mandrel > >made of wood in the shape of a "V" on the bottom. Make it of solid wood >and > >fiberglass it in place with epoxy it in place. Use fairing compound to >blend > >it into the hull and shape the forward end of the wood "V" so that is was > >somewhat shallower in front. If it doesn't work, it would be easy to cut >it > >off. In fact, if the only thing holding it in place was woven roving and >mat > >on the side and fore and aft, you could cut it off with a cutoff wheel. >We > >are experimenting after all. If it works, epoxy and/or 5200 it in place. > > > >I get the impression that some #1 trawler hulls from custom builders come > >back on the market with disturbing frequency - no names. I guess that >they > >did not meet owner expectations or they had outright design flaws. > > > >I'm surprised that Northern Marine or Delta hasn't experimented with >this. > >Maybe their monster hulls don't slap? > > > >Ron Rogers > >Bulbous Designer > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Phil Eslinger" <pslinger@mindspring.com> > > > >| There also has to be a > >| percentage of naval architecture that comes under the heading of trial > >| and error. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Regarding: Hey Rod - Your site has a PDF sales brochure that has the exact same verbiage as your last long-winded [PUP] post. Effective immediately this topic is to come to an end. We are off track, there is no passagemaking content in this discussion, and the question of compliance with list etiquette has been justifiably raised. If the topic continues, a filter will be put in place to squelch it, and if thinly disguised sales tactics reappear, offending members will be placed on moderated status. Thank you for keeping this a place to discuss passagemaking Scott Bulger PUP List Administrator.

Hi Cliff, I'm genuinely sorry to have upset you. I'm reminded of Mark Twain's comment: 'If I'd had more time, I'd have written you a shorter letter." Had I known how my e-mail might be misconstrued, I'd certainly have taken more time to write more carefully. You see, my previous e-mail was simply a continuation of Ron's thread about risks associated with purchasing "hull number 1" or any early-production model. (BTW: He's already sent me an e-mail in appreciation of the things I wrote in that e-mail you found out of line.) Everything I wrote about my personal experiences with such vessels was factual. The examples included both monohulls and cats. I wasn't trying to push any particular model....or agenda. As to your other point, I'm puzzled that you think my comment about tiered pricing was self-promotional. I purposely recommended neither a website nor a brand name. It was my intention to provide some "insider" info without in any way making a connection to any brand. I see, however, that thanks to your diligence and computer skills, you were able to ferret out a possible connection. But if you simply read my e-mail for the value of it's content, I still don't see myself guilty of your implied "gotch ya." Granted, I could have used some other example, but neither the brand nor the dealer was pertinent (and thus I mentioned neither). I simply thought some of your readers might be interested. After all, if saving $50,000 to $100,000 or more when purchasing a passagemaking yacht isn't germaine to the topic of bluewater cruising, what is? The fact is, builders usually downplay introductory pricing because it's such a two-bladed sword; anyone who doesn't get in on that limited pricing is understandably disappointed if they have that short-lived pricing in mind when buying at the much higher, full list price thereafter. But meanwhile, Cliff, thanks for your eagle-eye. When I have something else to post that is pertinent to passagemaking, I'll write it as though you were looking over my shoulder at the keyboard, and, with humble appreciation, proceed accordingly. Kind Regards, Rod Gibbons