A larger Marinuat (wherefor art thou)...

L

Les Lampman

New member
I thought it might be time for a bit of an update (again) on the plans for a larger Marinaut.

Due to demands on the time of the person doing the drawings they have been very slow in completion so I haven't been posting much about the larger boat lately.

Here's the latest version:

7408614104_9439b8d362.jpg


The boat has grown now to just under 26 feet (lets call it a M259). That was the result of not wanting to mess with the interior at all, not wanting to make the cockpit smaller, wanting to have a transom door, and trying to accommodate twin engines.

I am not personally happy with the length increase but at this point it's math and human ergonomics (along with getting the desired features).

The change also impacts the cost of the boat since the transom area is more complex and will require more time and material. A rough estimate is that the transom arrangement shown is going to add about $3,000 to $5,000 to the boat (compared to the same boat with a "standard" transom).

I've also now had many discussions about taking the process to the next level. That would be taking the lines (hullform) of the M215 and handing those over to a naval architect along with our M246/M259 drawings and having a full set of plans done with CNC data. Then having the various parts carved out of foam (using the CNC information) or hand built (as suits each piece). Then having the plug parts finished off and molds made.

The estimate for that work at this point is about $350,000. Quite frankly, it would take a lot of sales to pay back that level of investment.

Also, the boat will be more expensive than I had hoped. We just got another price increase on resin (in particular) and fuel tanks. We've also had steady price increases on the parts we use in building the boats (wiper motors, water tank, electrical components, and shipping for all that). We're running such a tight margin on the M215 already that I'm going to be forced to raise the price of that boat (just the amount of the actual cost increases but still...) at some point.

I'd estimate that the M259 will be around $70,000 (maybe a bit less for the "basic" model). Call power about $15,000 (to $20,000) and the trailer about $7,000. That will put the boat/motor/trailer package around $92,000 to $97,000. Then add about $15,000 for electronics and accessories (that seems to be about the average of our customers with a good electronics suite, heater, windlass, some canvas, etc) for a real world total of about $107,000 to $112,000.

Honestly, my inclination at this point is to go back to simpler. It seems most folks want: 1) an enclosed head compartment, and 2) to be able to tow with a vehicle that's rated for around 7,500 pounds (Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota Sequoia, Suburban, Expedition, etc). I'm thinking a "stretched" M215 might be the answer rather than a boat the size the M259 has become.

I'd love to have your input.

Thanks...as always.
 
For comparison, the C-Dory 26 Venture is in the same price range, and the C-25 is close, so I'm not surprised at the price point. It would certainly be nice from a marketing standpoiint to hit that $99,995 price point for the package, but it's just not realistic in today's market.

You also, with this design, would begin competing with Sea Sport, Skagit Orca and Osprey (although the Marinaut is a different style, some people will cross-shop). Is there a big enough market for a boat this size?

Funny things happen when you get over that $100K price point. A family that can afford $120K can probably afford $150, and that opens a whole lot more options to them. And is this market already being served by the Ranger Tug and Cutwater products? Not quite the same boat style, but similar buyer.

I like the layout, but I think at that size I would be tempted to push the beam out a bit to enlarge the dinette, but that adds weight and cost. But it might sell some boats.

I think the M259 woulkd make a great third boat in the line up, with a 23-24 footer in between the 215 and it.

One other thought- What does it do to the cost to have a standard transom at the cockpit bulkhead, with door, and then use an aluminum platform for the swim step / motor mount? Could you then offer the boat with notched transom / short cockpit or full transom w/ bracket.

Isn't it fun playing designer?
 
Well its starting to look alot like my 27 without the under deck storage. I love the swim step on my boat and the extra space it provides in the boat by not taking up space with a splash well. I really dont see a need for the transom door and think it takes away from useful space, you cant put things in fornt of it. So if you did not have a engine well but a bracket, fiberglass or alum, and got rid of the transom door what would that do for your price? I have to tell you I dont miss the engine well at all from my 22. I use the increase space of the deck far more then I did the well. Just another take on the matter.
 
Hi Matt,

Great thoughts...and thanks!

The important factors for me in considering the larger Marinaut were:

- enclosed head
- single level (or very close) for cabin and cockpit
- operate nicely on a 150-hp outboard
- good fuel economy
- 7,000 pounds or under on the trailer
- affordable (relatively speaking)

The fuel economy and trailering weight would definitely set it apart from the Sea Sport, Orca, etc. They really would be completely different markets and once someone learns the running characteristics of a deep-v hull versus a Marinaut hull I can't see them seriously considering both of them. But you never know so it's a great point.

I totally agree on the $100,000 break point. I'd very much like to bring the larger Marinaut in under that figure as a boat/motor/trailer package with decent electronics (but not maybe all the high end stuff).

The beam is at 8' 6" and I just don't want to deal with the over-width issue. It's not a big deal for lots of folks but I've found it's a real deal killer for others. Our niche has always been trailerable (as opposed to transportable) cruisers and that's where I feel most comfortable.

The dinette seat bases pull out (toward the centerline) and the table extends to seat 4 people, that's about the best I can hope for in an 8' 6" wide boat and still retain a decent central passageway and usable side decks.

If you're going to design the boat for outboard power from the get-go then a bracket doesn't make a lot of sense (unless it's a performance boat that would benefit from that set up); a bracket is most useful to a builder that has a full height flat transom and that offers a variety of power sources (I/O, inboard, outboard, etc) on the same hull. Otherwise it costs as much to add the bracket as it does to just stretch the hull the same distance. In essence what I did on this last version is just do a built-in bracket. Either way it's in that $3,000 to $5,000 range.

It would be very difficult to offer the boat with a motorwell or with a bracket as choices. For a transom mounted motor the transom and deck molds have the motorwell molded in so if you then want to add a bracket what do you do with the space you're already allocated for the motorwell, and how do you deal with the shape of the whole thing? Conceivably you could cut down the transom by hand and glass in a motorwell if you had a full transom but that hand work would likely cost as much as a bracket (and I don't think would ever look as finished). At the end of the day the most economical approach is to just make the molds the way you want the finished boat.

Quite honestly, the issue with a 23 to 23 footer is that I don't know what's enough and what's too little. It's pretty apparent that a 24-footer can't have all the same stuff our (now) 26-footer does, so what do I leave out?

If I took the Marinaut 215 just as it exists today and added just enough length to add a head compartment to it (which would also gain a storage cabinet across from it) would that do it? If I do that I can't really offer a usable shower (at least not for the average size adult), there just isn't enough width or cabin height. Does that kill it for too many folks.

The other issue is development costs. The costs aren't going to be much different between a 24-footer and a 26-footer though the final (customer) cost of the smaller boat should be less. The least expensive option would be to just stretch the current 215 but as I mentioned before I'm just not sure if that's what folks really want.

Les
 
starcrafttom":2fsw7bmt said:
Well its starting to look alot like my 27 without the under deck storage. I love the swim step on my boat and the extra space it provides in the boat by not taking up space with a splash well. I really dont see a need for the transom door and think it takes away from useful space, you cant put things in fornt of it. So if you did not have a engine well but a bracket, fiberglass or alum, and got rid of the transom door what would that do for your price? I have to tell you I dont miss the engine well at all from my 22. I use the increase space of the deck far more then I did the well. Just another take on the matter.
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

I know I only posted the overhead plan view of the boat so you don't get to see if from the side but there is no motorwell (enginewell) on this boat.

Essentially the boat aft of the aft cockpit bulkhead is an integrated bracket; rather than bolting it on after the fact it's molded as part of the hull.

The answer to your question about price is that using a bracket would increase, rather than decrease, the price. The Rosborough RF-246 is a good example. They have a 25-foot hull they offered with inboard or I/O power for years. When outboards got better and more popular they developed a bracket so they could offer the boat that way. That bracket is a $5,500 option. If you're doing a new boat (and therefore a new mold) it's cheaper to make the boat longer than it is to add a bracket (hence the integrated bracket on the M259 design).

The biggest issues are that the boat is becoming an awfully lot "bigger" than I intended and a lot more expensive. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to meet the needs of most folks without having to have such a large and expensive boat. And at the same time make it less expensive to develop so that we have some hope of making it happen.

Les
 
Les,

Since you are also a Rosborough dealer, if you had the new Marinaut 259 ready to sell as currently designed, how would you compare and contrast the two boats for a potential customer? I would be interested in hearing your take on the strengths and weaknesses of the two boats.

Thanks,

Rob
 
I'll second the motion from Starcrafttom:

I really dont see a need for the transom door and think it takes away from useful space, you cant put things in fornt of it.
Click to expand...

I agree the $100K is a definite price delimiter. But if you can manage to stay under other similar boats by say 10%, plus the extra incentive of better fuel mileage, I think you have a winner. Go with minimal electronics, upgrading later when money/new technology available is always an option, plus keeps that initial sticker shock at bay.

I myself prefer the M246 size range and whatever that dictates in the transom area, single engine w/kicker. Meets needs of an enclosed head plus extra storage for those with more people onboard. Inside shower hasn't been a "must" for me even though my CD25 can handle it, I prefer to shower in the cockpit with canvas up, never an issue.
 
Les I was about to ask that question. Looking at the drawings better I should have seen that the transon door would not lead to a motor well. :roll: You now have my approval. ( we really need a pope emoticons on this site). I still stand by my door commits thu. I really would love to see this boat come to be.
 
If you took the current hull and put on an outboard bracket, with solid transom, that would save you the development cost of the "new hull". I would think that with the current hull and gaining the 30" of the splash well (guess at size), this might give you a boat with the enclosed shower and hanging locker. Maybe add a foot to the hull...but again a lot cheaper than a new complete mold. Same with the deck house, and cabin top elements.

I happen to be amount those who would only want an 8 1/2 foot beam. Some places, both the permits and the reality of a wider hull is an issue. (I drive an RV which is 8 1/2 feet wide, but the mirrors, awnings etc, make it realistically closer to 10 1/2 feet wide--and it is tight in some places....

Why do you have to go with current purchased brackets? Have a shop weld them up for you, or make a fiberglass one?

All of the above saves a lot of the $350,000 development costs. We all know that one of the basic tricks in boat building business is to take one hull and make several deck configurations/hull extensions.
 
For me I like the layout and better rough water capabilities.

Price is a factor as is length, length of cockpit, head and shower and 4 person dinette. Price.

A 245 or 24.5 feet with 8'6 beam, might be ideal for me. What about twist the stove 90 degrees to shorten the kitchen/cabin. If the twins take up to much transom, single only and no walk thru transom.

Thant just might be as close to my dream boat as is achievable. ie. a combination fish and cruising boat 50/50

Thanks for letting us provide input.

Stefan
 
It looks as though you spelled the name of your own product wrong on the subject line or is the new larger boat have a different name. :P Loads of Marinaut threads now days. It's like free advertising. Good to see the new boat taking shape.
D.D.
 
Rob & Karen":bncl73gp said:
Les,

Since you are also a Rosborough dealer, if you had the new Marinaut 259 ready to sell as currently designed, how would you compare and contrast the two boats for a potential customer? I would be interested in hearing your take on the strengths and weaknesses of the two boats.

Thanks,

Rob
Click to expand...

Hi Rob,

The M259 would still be a completely different boat from the RF-246. Really, in almost every aspect. The closest thing that comes to mind would be comparing, say, a 26-foot van based camper to a 26-foot Class A motorhome. Regardless of the similarities they're fundamentally quite different in concept and intended market.

With a M259 sitting next to a RF-246 you'd still very much have the impression that the RF-246 is a larger boat. The M259 is a comparatively low profile boat intended to be trailered easily and often and the emphasis is on keeping it light (and still making it comfortable). The RF-246 is built on a work boat hull form with a lot more displacement and is built like the proverbial tank (some 50+ of them are used by the Canadian government).

I can't say which is better; would you rather drive a 26-foot Class C van-based camper or a 26-foot Class A motorhome. And which will meet your needs better when you're traveling or once you get to your destination? It's really a personal choice.

The RF-246 is 27-1/2 feet long with it's hull extension, is usually powered with a pair of 115's or 135's, is about 10,000 pounds on the trailer, and a new one is about $160,000 (or better) when fully rigged out.

The M259 is just under 26-feet long, would typically be powered by a single 150 hp engine, should be about 7,000 on the trailer, and will (hopefully) be under $115,000 when rigged out.

Both boats will have about the same sort of interior space but it's divided up differently. The RF-246 had a real "forward cabin" that you step down into and offers about 5' 9" to 5' 10" of headroom, and that's also where the toilet is located. The cabin and cockpit sole are fairly high in the boat to allow the tanks to be underneath but it is all one level.

The M259 is one level (or nearly so) all the way from the transom to the v-berth so there's no stepping down from the cockpit to the cabin or from the cabin to the v-berth. The opening to the v-berth is the same as we've done on the M215 so access it easy. You're not "up" in the M259 like you are in the RF-246. The M259 has saddle tanks for fuel like the M215.

The RF-246 is likely about 2,500 pounds heavier in the water than the M259 so the "feel" of the boat will be a lot different. The RF-246 has a decidedly big boat feel to it that I don't believe will be the same in the M259 just due to weight and hull shape. The M215 is very comfortable for its size and weight and the goal for the M259 is the same, so even with a light hull it should have a nice ride but the heavier RF-246 may have an advantage in that regard (and I would expect it to).

Of course, there's quite a difference in power requirements and therefor fuel economy. Based on the M215 the M259 should be in the 3 to 3.5 nmpg range and the RF-246 is typically closer to 2 to 2.25 nmpg. Percentage-wise that's a lot of difference but how much difference it makes in terms of annual fuel dollars spent is really up to how the boat is used.

It takes a good 3/4 or 1-ton truck to trailer the RF-246 and a long wheelbase is really the best. The M259 will be comfortable behind a large SUV, van, or F150-class truck.

There's a start on the list anyway. Hope it helps.

Les
 
starcrafttom":nmlvii2z said:
I really dont see a need for the transom door and think it takes away from useful space, you cant put things in fornt of it. So if you did not have a engine well but a bracket, fiberglass or alum, and got rid of the transom door what would that do for your price?
Click to expand...

I'm not currently in the market for this class of boat, so I'm just noodling ideas here, but I wonder if the transom door would be a desirable feature that might make the Marinaut a good fit vs. something like, say, the C-Dory 25. Not that you are trying to "convince" people to get either one - and they are both obviously great boats - but I just mean in terms of fit and features when boat buyers are looking to fit their needs.

Even though I'm relatively limber, climbing in and out of the 22 does take a certain physicality, and I'm thinking the transom door may make boarding easier? For example, I hurt my shoulder last year and that made it surprisingly difficult to get into and out of the cockpit of a friend's 22. Of course quite a few things surprisingly became difficult - sort of like when you hop on a bicycle and roads that seemed flat when you were driving suddenly prove to have quite a few hills!) If the accessibility would be as much easier as I'm imagining, then it's a feature I would consider a plus as a "mature" buyer, even if I didn't need it yet (or, of course, if I did).
 
In an earlier thread on the C-Brat forum here the subject of the transom door came up and it was very much a feature folks (at least the vocal ones in that thread) wanted to have.

Our customer base is aging (me too darn it) and when a lot of folks try to climb out of a dinghy and onto the mother ship it's not always an easy process. I think the ability to bring the dink up the stern of a larger Marinaut, step onto the integrated bracket/swim step, then just step though into the cockpit, would be a very nice feature.

There's another safety aspect I always have in mind related to this. As we age we tend to not have the balance we once did. I think this means that there's a potentially higher risk for leaning over the side (for a crab pot, or a fish, etc) and taking a tail-over-teakettle tumble into the sea. The water in the PNW is COLD and it doesn't take very long before it's difficult to help oneself get out of the water (this is very true in warm water areas as well, you just have a bit longer time to deal with it). And it takes a fit and strong person aboard to deal with the weight of a cold (or tired) person in the water who can't help much (think bigger guy in the water, smaller woman in the cockpit here). On a lot of boats, even with a transom ladder, once you're up on the ladder it can be quite difficult to transition from the ladder to the cockpit if you have to clamber over a motorwell, especially if you're cold and can't help yourself much. It would be much better to be able to climb the ladder to a swim step and then be able to use a door to get into the cockpit (even if you have to half crawl, or heaven forbid, be dragged in).

Having a door in the transom doesn't preclude putting stuff in front of it. Just ignore that it's there and put stuff where you want it. In other words, I think it's a positive for folks that want it but it isn't a negative for folks that don't.

Les
 
I am certainly not the oldest, but at 76 I am getting along in years, plus I have serious back problems. (including surgery and regular facet injections etc). However I have always been able to handle getting in and out of a dinghy with the C Dory line, by sitting on the gunnel, swinging my feet over to the dinghy and then standing on the bottom of the dinghy. (having long legs helps). Going back may require standing on the pontoon. The key here is the stability of the dinghy. (for example air floor)

The Tom Cat allows you to bring the bow of many dinghies to be brought between the engines (not sure that would work in the Marinaut). Are the sides of the built in hull extension to be low, or at what level to make it easier to get into the dinghy? We did make a small swim step (1.5 x 2 feet) set back into the transom of the Cal 46, with a 3 step stair case (nearly 4 foot freeboard), which allowed the inflatable to be brought right against the transom, along with hand railings for boarding. But again, this was purpose designed for boarding ease (including consideration for my 88 year old mother who had hip surgery)

The point is that one has to design specific dinghy access, with hand holds to make it "easy"--just a transom door does not do that. We almost never board the dinghy off the swim step of a C Dory 22 or 25. The reason is that there are not enough hand holds for stability. But each of us has our own techniques.
 
Even without the dinghy use having a transom door would be a nice addition. I'm still pretty young (60s), but I have a number of older friends that find it very difficult to get into the cockpit of the tomcat. These folks have hip and knee problems that limit their mobility. A transom door would greatly aid their ability to enjoy the boat. And having visited friends with a Ranger tug I think I would like using the transom door. Of course that is not an option with the tomcat but as I age I might think about a boat with a transom door.
 
Adding a few feet to the Marinaut 215 hull and cabin to create a space for an enclosed head makes a lot of sense. The benefit of a dedicated enclosed head compartment (rather than a porta-potty under the v berth) might big selling point for a lot of couples.
Having an enclosed shower on board appears to be an expensive "driver" for the design revisions that are making the Marinaut approach 26'. Most marinas have coin-operated showers, and when you are on the hook, a solar shower can work. It would be interesting to take a poll of 25' CD owners and find out how many times a year they use the showers on their boats.
I think it pays to stick with the "KISS" approach. During a previous ownership, C-Dory lost sight of the "KISS" approach and ended up with the CD-29. Nuff said about that.
best regards,
Leo
 
Our family has been both new and now a very much used Dory owners. If I was an optimist I would say that we will be looking for something larger in a few years as we get more settled in our new state. Knowing what we continue to be attracted to I would say a boat with a transom door such as the current Rangers really do make entering the boat easier specially when your carrying a large load onto the boat. I also feel it creates an "up scale" image. I for one would vote for the transom door. I like the fact that your current version is more than a CD 25 and V26. Its similar but not the same. I believe after someone does the research into these boats, learns of your desire to produce one of the best boats in value and function they would be excited to work with you.
Also I personally think one that looks at 99500 vs 105 can easily justify the difference for the "right" boat. Usually people that are attracted to a Dory style boat are educated buyers and can see the value in the boats we buy. After all if 5k is going to sway some to a different line then they are probably not your customer.?.
 
The wife has had three hip replacements. No transom door means she cannot boat. I like the offset location for the door but suggest perhaps letting it flush swing to the outside middle to free up cockpit space. Also, no stern sea can push it open. An alternative would be to have it swing in on the same side as the cabin door (this leaves one long side of the cockpit open). I really like the sliding cabin doors, they may leak a bit more than swinging doors but they again keep the cockpit more open. I would be willing to have a good step/sill below the door to stop water from going into the cabin. Thanks for keeping us all in the loop Les, a builder who listens to his customers is a rarity.
Bob
 
As you mentioned the $350K investment is indeed difficult to justify and presents a formidable issue especially in this questionable economy.

The ideas behind the M259 definitely appeal to us as a next boat (a jump up from our current Venture 23') and would indeed be a boat capable of handling our needs in the future.

Large enough to allow longer duration stays on the boat offering more comfort and space then we presently have. More room but still offering relatively good fuel economy, a possibly better ride, and also being light enough to allow us to avoid being forced into buying a much larger and more expensive tow vehicle all combine to add up to an attractive package.

Whereas the over $100K range is indeed formidable other boats we would consider to meet some of our expectations would be equally or even more expensive such as the Ranger Tugs, a larger C-Dory, or other possible options and would all also require the additional investment in a heavier tow vehicle.

A transom door also greatly appeals to us and would indeed serve an aging and sometimes physically limited population well and also offer easier boarding for gear, provisions, and pets too.

I will definitely be following along on this site with a keen interest in your future actions sir. Good luck in whatever you decide to do Les!

Take care,
Dan, Tanya, and Hannah Denver on C-Renity
 
Back
Top