I was out on a little weekend cruise and had the (not unusual) request to look over the boat from a couple thinking about a C-D. Most of the questions seemed to be about the 22 Cruiser and 23 Venture differences. Ours was the first physical Venture they had seen. At the end of the 'tour' I was asked about the Marinaut. I said I didn't know how many had been built or sold and referred them to C-Brats. If they do come by maybe someone would like to answer the question up front and maybe some current owners could post experiences?
Experience
- Thread starter chimoii
- Start date
Les Lampman
New member
Thanks for your post chimoii. 
And thanks too for sending the folks you met over to C-Brats (regardless of which boat they do (or don't) choose).
The first boat out of the molds was Dave Thompson's personal boat (or the factory demo boat if you will)...not sure you could count that as a sold boat but Dave's wallet thinks so!
We have one M215 on order for a couple on the east coast of the U.S. so that will be hull #2. Hull #3 will be our boat. There are several more folks in the fact finding/decision making process so I do expect to build more boats this year (and many more next year).
One major consideration is that the Marinaut isn't really an "all new" boat in the sense that there's anything radically different about it...build wise or design wise. It's really the next iteration of the boats Ben Toland has been involved in for decades blended with an awfully lot of good layout and design decisions by Dave and Ben with input and experience from the C-Dory 22 and Cape Cruiser/Venture 23 boat owners.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there's nothing "scary" about the boat...like it's some newfangled thing and one should wait to see if the boat floats right side up.
In some sense it's really a modernized C-Dory 22, not so much in terms of actual design (since it doesn't share the lines of the CD22) but certainly in concept. It's like taking a look at a classic (which the CD22 is) and imagining what a new design incorporating the same design philosophy (easy planing, low horsepower requirement, simple systems, trailerable, enclosed cabin, cruising capable, open water capable) would look like, and taking into account the weight of modern outboards, range requirements, and typical accessories and equipment.
And like every other classic design that's been reinterpreted that are those that will always prefer the original and those that appreciate the original but like the newer ideas too. I loved my original VW Beetles but I can tell you without a doubt I much prefer our current New Beetle. It's always a personal choice for sure.
Les
And thanks too for sending the folks you met over to C-Brats (regardless of which boat they do (or don't) choose).The first boat out of the molds was Dave Thompson's personal boat (or the factory demo boat if you will)...not sure you could count that as a sold boat but Dave's wallet thinks so!
We have one M215 on order for a couple on the east coast of the U.S. so that will be hull #2. Hull #3 will be our boat. There are several more folks in the fact finding/decision making process so I do expect to build more boats this year (and many more next year).
One major consideration is that the Marinaut isn't really an "all new" boat in the sense that there's anything radically different about it...build wise or design wise. It's really the next iteration of the boats Ben Toland has been involved in for decades blended with an awfully lot of good layout and design decisions by Dave and Ben with input and experience from the C-Dory 22 and Cape Cruiser/Venture 23 boat owners.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there's nothing "scary" about the boat...like it's some newfangled thing and one should wait to see if the boat floats right side up.
In some sense it's really a modernized C-Dory 22, not so much in terms of actual design (since it doesn't share the lines of the CD22) but certainly in concept. It's like taking a look at a classic (which the CD22 is) and imagining what a new design incorporating the same design philosophy (easy planing, low horsepower requirement, simple systems, trailerable, enclosed cabin, cruising capable, open water capable) would look like, and taking into account the weight of modern outboards, range requirements, and typical accessories and equipment.
And like every other classic design that's been reinterpreted that are those that will always prefer the original and those that appreciate the original but like the newer ideas too. I loved my original VW Beetles but I can tell you without a doubt I much prefer our current New Beetle. It's always a personal choice for sure.
Les
Yellowstone
New member
Les - Thanks for the update on the Marinault. Have a comment for you and the other designers and then a question. What I see certainly shows much thought and some interesting innovations, e.g. side saddle tanks and opened berth on port side. Question. The Marinault appears to accommodate only a single engine. Does the reliability of today's engines blend into that decision? Give us your thoughts. Thanks. John
Les Lampman
New member
Yellowstone":3oae133h said:
Hi John,
I can't answer directly for Dave and Ben but I can tell you that while most designers/builders/dealers have that in the back of their mind I doubt it's "the" factor for making a decision about whether to accommodate one engine or two.
I think it's really a bend of the practicalities of the choices at hand. Almost everyone knows full well that a boat (and most other things in life!) is one floating set of compromises. In looking at the Marinaut from my perspective now I can see that choosing to have the motorwell accommodate twins would have impacted:
- the space allocated for batteries
- the space allocated for aux fuel tanks
- the space allocated for aft storage
- the dash (more space for more gauges)
- The helm seating area, and in particular the space needed for twin engine controls.
It would have also impacted the basic premise of what one thinks the boat is, or is to be, at the design stage. For instance, when you look at the transom area of the Marinaut there's not much doubt that water will stay outside the boat. Not only is there a full height forward motorwell bulkhead but the horizontal area (deck) around the motorwell is fully enclosed. There's not much volume in the single motor well so even a breaking wave dumping in it is not going to affect the boat very much.
Does that make a big difference? I don't know. From a practical standpoint you don't hear a lot about C-Dory 22's getting pooped but there's something to be said for what a transom like the Marinaut has lends to the psychology of perceived safety.
It also happens to look good (to my eye) and I'm sure that played a part as well.
In the long run I think it was mostly about simplicity (since several things on the boat would have to be quite different for twins), aesthetics, and the fact that modern outboards are very reliable.
Market wise, except for larger boats that need the horsepower, most outboard powered boats are single engine. In fact this is true of the C-Dory 22 as well although there are quite a few twin engine boats which is a bit of an anomaly.
From a technical perspective it's not proven that twin engines are safer or superior to a single engine; it's still very much a personal and subjective choice (except for cats and boats that need more horsepower than one engine can provide). For every situation where twins would win the day an opposite situation for a single engine being the better choice can be presented. It's really a no-win argument from a technical (objective) viewpoint. [Most serious long-range motor cruisers are single engine (many with a back up system); it's been shown for years that it's the most efficient way to go from a cost and maintenance perspective.]
The single engine only design of the Marinaut provides room for aux tanks (built-in or portable), or room to store fenders and lines and other items, and gives the cockpit a much larger "feel". It also meant the helm space could be more compact and along with no port side forward cabin bulkhead that lends the cabin a more open feel. With a couple of (throwable type) cushions the space to either side of the motorwell proves a couple of nice seats; that area also provides space to install a bait well if desired. All those things would have had to have been given up if the transom were opened up for twins.
Ultimately you take your best thoughts about how the boat will be used, who will use it, and what things you want to incorporate into the boat and make your best decision (as a designer) as to what will fit the best and how you can meet the most expectations. I think when most folks see the open space under the motorwell area in the Marinaut if you then asked them if they'd trade that space for the ability to have twin engines the answer would typically be "no". Of course that wouldn't be everyone's answer but I do personally feel after all the CD22s we've sold and rigged and repowered that at the end of the day it's not really a significant consideration for most folks. And most will fit an auxiliary bracket on the port side and carry a kicker for fishing and/or backup use.
Les
Yellowstone
New member
Les - Thanks for your analysis. I recommend that every visitor to this site read what you have to say. It summarizes so many valid points that have broad application to our kinds of boats. I believe it was about 15 years ago when we visited , and I suggested to you then that you had the qualities of a master teacher. Still believe that is true. John
Les Lampman
New member
C-Otter":1fnfdksy said:Hey Les, Sounds like your talking about the pre "87" CD Classics.
Ain't that the truth!
Les Lampman
New member
Yellowstone":2gmgxuan said:
Thanks for the Kind words John! They make me blush.
Yellowstone":pzofak10 said:
Since I started this one I hope you don't mind me chipping in.
One of the things the "lookers" liked about our Venture was the twin 60's. I did explain that most CD's were with singles and that there certainly could be arguments both ways. A single is always going to be more fuel efficient because of drag, twins can make maneuvering easier, etc. etc. . A lot of problems these days are fuel related as much as motor related and unless you are running twins off separate tanks the extra motor will not help there. Well, today I proved myself wrong.
I have been thankful for the twins twice in the last two years. The first time I was passing the BC ferry terminal at Swartz Bay. A ferry started to leave the dock and I was astern. No problem but at that moment an overheat alarm went off on one motor. I shut it down and used the other to get well out of the way. I am sure I could have done it with a kicker but it was really nice to have 60 Ho on tap at the time. Once clear I swung up the offending motor and cleared the weed from the water inlet before going on my way.
Something similar happened last year when passing through the channel off Canoe Cove. Again I got a water inlet choked and had to stop a motor. (As many will know, we get a lot of nice marine foliage in the area.) With the current ripping past the rocks at a good 5 knots I was again thankful for the second 60.
Today was much simpler. The fuel filter alarm went off on one motor. I could certainly have managed this one on a kicker but it was nice to take myself over to Sidney Spit at a reasonable cruise. I cleaned the filters on both motors and then swapped the spin-on. Probably I was seeing condensation in the tanks, the result of a miserable Spring. It did make me wonder whether to split my tanks and run one motor off each, probably with a crossover in case I really lose a motor or one tank is badly contaminated. Any thoughts anyone?
Les Lampman
New member
Chimoii,
I have no argument whatsoever. In the situations you're describing your twins have taken care of you.
It is situational however. If you have twins and you hit a log often times both props are damaged and you have no kicker to resort to (one with a good prop since it would have been tipped up out of the water), ditto if you happen to wander into shallow water and hit bottom.
Another argument is that since you have two engines and their attendant systems there are twice as many things to go wrong and a higher probability that something will go wrong. Seems to makes some sense for a pure logic standpoint but I don't know how you'd ever prove it in the real world.
No matter what, twins make a boat more complex...there's just no way to have twins and the systems for each and the interface points for both, and not end up with more on the boat than with a single.
And ad infinitum since the scenarios can go on forever; that's why it's such a personal choice and why I can't give folks an unbiased objective technical answer about which is the "better" choice since there just isn't one except for the individuals involved.
It's 98% a psychological choice; you either feel more comfortable with twins on the transom and want them or you don't. The only issue I have is when someone tries to take away from the importance of getting what you want (just because that's what you want) and turns it into a justification argument. Except in very rare circumstances there is no justification for it beyond the fact that the twins or a single is what you'd most like to have on your boat.
I'm absolutely not arguing for or against. Even though I have an interest in seeing Marinaut 215 boats purchased I would never try to talk someone that really feels more comfortable with twins into the Marinaut. It wouldn't be their vision of the "ideal" boat and they wouldn't be happy in the long run...and then neither would I.
Les
I have no argument whatsoever. In the situations you're describing your twins have taken care of you.
It is situational however. If you have twins and you hit a log often times both props are damaged and you have no kicker to resort to (one with a good prop since it would have been tipped up out of the water), ditto if you happen to wander into shallow water and hit bottom.
Another argument is that since you have two engines and their attendant systems there are twice as many things to go wrong and a higher probability that something will go wrong. Seems to makes some sense for a pure logic standpoint but I don't know how you'd ever prove it in the real world.
No matter what, twins make a boat more complex...there's just no way to have twins and the systems for each and the interface points for both, and not end up with more on the boat than with a single.
And ad infinitum since the scenarios can go on forever; that's why it's such a personal choice and why I can't give folks an unbiased objective technical answer about which is the "better" choice since there just isn't one except for the individuals involved.
It's 98% a psychological choice; you either feel more comfortable with twins on the transom and want them or you don't. The only issue I have is when someone tries to take away from the importance of getting what you want (just because that's what you want) and turns it into a justification argument. Except in very rare circumstances there is no justification for it beyond the fact that the twins or a single is what you'd most like to have on your boat.
I'm absolutely not arguing for or against. Even though I have an interest in seeing Marinaut 215 boats purchased I would never try to talk someone that really feels more comfortable with twins into the Marinaut. It wouldn't be their vision of the "ideal" boat and they wouldn't be happy in the long run...and then neither would I.
Les
Hi Les
I absolutely agree with you and hope you don't think I was disagreeing with your prior posts. Every boat is a compromise and you make a good point about complexity vs redundancy.
After 40 years engineering drive systems from high speed (120 mph +) to ice class vessels, tug boats, ferries etc. I have only ever been involved with one pleasure boat. It was 115 ft long so no CD. Personal choice was very obvious when the owner made decisions on that one for sure! :roll: I hope never to do another one.
I wish you all the very best with the Marinaut. I also wish Triton every future success with CD. Hopefully the folks I met will follow up and then choose the boat that best suits them, just as you wrote.
I absolutely agree with you and hope you don't think I was disagreeing with your prior posts. Every boat is a compromise and you make a good point about complexity vs redundancy.
After 40 years engineering drive systems from high speed (120 mph +) to ice class vessels, tug boats, ferries etc. I have only ever been involved with one pleasure boat. It was 115 ft long so no CD. Personal choice was very obvious when the owner made decisions on that one for sure! :roll: I hope never to do another one.
I wish you all the very best with the Marinaut. I also wish Triton every future success with CD. Hopefully the folks I met will follow up and then choose the boat that best suits them, just as you wrote.
C-weetness:
My wife and I are the "plank owner" for the new Marinaut, and Les informed us that ours will be Hull #1 manufactured by Marinaut Boat Company. So when I read your comment "plank owner" at the time, I wondered if it was poking fun at our being the first. I'm so dense! Les explained to me that the term plank owner is "...actually a compliment. In the Navy it refers to the crew that's aboard when a ship is first commissioned and is considered an honor when the ship's history is looked back on." So thank you for the compliment. My wife and I will be proud to own the first boat off the line. We have just about finished nailing down all the customizations for the boat, which will be extensive. And when we do, we will share the details with the group. I have to say that it has been very enjoyable working with Les at EQ Harbor Services (EQ Marine). It has been quite an educational process, and my wife and I are so glad we chose the Marinaut 215 and EQ Marine.
Incidentally, Dave Thompson did a brilliant job of designing the original Marinaut interior. In the fall, we are going to have a two-week shake down cruise from Seattle to the San Juan's, and plan to live on the boat throughout that time. That's one of the reasons we are getting the full camperback enclosure, and the Wallas 85 DU stove/heater. Dave's design we think will make a huge difference in the boat being comfortable for that length of time.
Thanks,
Rich
My wife and I are the "plank owner" for the new Marinaut, and Les informed us that ours will be Hull #1 manufactured by Marinaut Boat Company. So when I read your comment "plank owner" at the time, I wondered if it was poking fun at our being the first. I'm so dense! Les explained to me that the term plank owner is "...actually a compliment. In the Navy it refers to the crew that's aboard when a ship is first commissioned and is considered an honor when the ship's history is looked back on." So thank you for the compliment. My wife and I will be proud to own the first boat off the line. We have just about finished nailing down all the customizations for the boat, which will be extensive. And when we do, we will share the details with the group. I have to say that it has been very enjoyable working with Les at EQ Harbor Services (EQ Marine). It has been quite an educational process, and my wife and I are so glad we chose the Marinaut 215 and EQ Marine.
Incidentally, Dave Thompson did a brilliant job of designing the original Marinaut interior. In the fall, we are going to have a two-week shake down cruise from Seattle to the San Juan's, and plan to live on the boat throughout that time. That's one of the reasons we are getting the full camperback enclosure, and the Wallas 85 DU stove/heater. Dave's design we think will make a huge difference in the boat being comfortable for that length of time.
Thanks,
Rich
C-Pup16 in Los Angeles
New member
Hi Rich,
I'd love to hear your comments about your new Marinaut as you put it to use in coming years. Seems like a fine design. I'm im SoCal so I prefer a boat like the CD16 with no bulkhead to make it easier to pilot and position it while fishing. I missed the chance to buy a nice looking used Venture with cockpit controls. Too bad. Given this economy, I'll wait to see if a used CD22 Angler or Venture23 comes on the market. If not, then maybe I'll oprder a new CD or Marinaut that is customized to my uses. My credit should be beteter than the U.S. Treasury. The problem would be unloading my CD 16 for a price my dear wife won't cry over.
Keith
C-Pup16 in los Angeles
I'd love to hear your comments about your new Marinaut as you put it to use in coming years. Seems like a fine design. I'm im SoCal so I prefer a boat like the CD16 with no bulkhead to make it easier to pilot and position it while fishing. I missed the chance to buy a nice looking used Venture with cockpit controls. Too bad. Given this economy, I'll wait to see if a used CD22 Angler or Venture23 comes on the market. If not, then maybe I'll oprder a new CD or Marinaut that is customized to my uses. My credit should be beteter than the U.S. Treasury. The problem would be unloading my CD 16 for a price my dear wife won't cry over.
Keith
C-Pup16 in los Angeles
Captains Cat
New member
chimoii":2w3azamq said:
No one responded to this part of your comments so I'll take a crack at it. On my CD22, I had twin 45's and they were each fed from a separate tank. I had pretty severe water problems once but I had fueled from the same source at the same time and had contamination in both so it didn't do me much good. I think if I were to do it again, I'd put in the valves to feed from either or both tanks to either or both engines, run one tank dry and never fuel both tanks from the same source at the same time.
Our TC255 has twin tanks and feeds the P/S engines from the respective tank. No way to cross connect them and it would be a PITA to pull the connector off the engine and switch to the other because of the distance apart that the engines are. Valves and piping, etc are the answer but each one introduces the possibility of a leak and gasoline isn't very forgiving. KISS is the answer!! :wink: I would think that a separate small tank of known good gas with a connector that would fit your engine might be the answer :idea: :?: :?:
Charlie
Les Lampman
New member
C-Pup16 in Los Angeles":289dpik6 said:
Hi Keith,
You know the aft cabin bulkhead on the Marinaut 215 is completely removable, right? That leaves the cabin wide open to the cockpit.
And customization is what we do! Gotta love a challenge.