How about...a Marinaut 25?

[chromer]

You should have some drawings of this 25 by the SBS. See if you get someone to smack down 70k.

 

[Aurelia]

I like most of the comments and agree with a larger table although the 3 person asymmetrical one in our 25 works well for us and that was a consideration in buying and swaying us away from the Tomcat. Most owners spend lots of time at that table so don't underestimate the importance. Folding or sliding tricks to add room would be more than welcome as long as it stays fast and simple.

The number of people who actually expect to shower in the boat may be quite low so don't get too carried away with oversizing the space. Offer lots of different toilet options including a nice porta-pottie with pumpout freeing up more space for other tankage or storage. I like the more water option as we only get about 16 usable gallons from ours and even 5 more would make enough difference to those who like to anchor most of the time. Smaller water heater would be great and I think a 3-4 gallon would be ideal. Our boat is setup for a 1000 watt honda to power everything but I already had it so I shot for that goal. A 2000 watt unit would be a better standard perhaps. Consider generator storage options/brackets as lots of folks end up needing some options there and position the shore power connection in a smart place.

I would also encourage a wrap around roof railing nearer to the front/side edges for easy tie down of gear and reach.

Solar options are a great idea and we love our system.

Single motor direction is a good decision and thats coming from a twin owner.

 

[jennykatz]

Les I think you are on the right track 5000lb boat ,eng,trailer weight, if doable will sell a lot of boats . People will not need to get a f350 or so to move their boats .
single eng with kicker seems like it will work for most buyers if not they can buy a c-25 or venture 26 .
like you said you are not builing a c25 clone .
The 4 place dinette is a big issue that must be addressed I think slide out seats or hinged seats and table would do the trick (look at some RV sites) As far as a head (toilet) goes give the customer a choice airhead ,porta potti, or marine head with bottom storage 5-6 gallons like some of the c-25's with fresh water pump.

Using some of the similar molds could be a win win for you and consumer's keep price under 100k.
trailer for a 5000lb boat would not have to cost more then $4500 probably less and a 135-150 hp at $15000-16000sounds about right . Elec there again could be $2000-????????
So if boat is $70k you could get into the 90k -100k I think you would have a winner .

 

[Anonymous]

Consider a "fishing option" for those who don't need all the cruising amenities.

I like that idea. Keeping the cabin as it is and extending the cockpit and fuel capacity might might attract those who enjoy being in the outdoors...

 

[Les Lampman]

Thanks Jerry, I really appreciate your input!

Les,

The four-place dinette has been done before in boats like the Olympic 24 and 26XL and Sea Sport Explorer 24 (8.5 ft. beams). The trick is to use slide out seat supports that accomodate the four people when needed but slide when not needed. The table top (hinged) can fold under or out as required.

Truly, how important is this really? It sounds like a great deal of hassle and expense to include something that might be used every once in awhile. How many folks routinely need to seat 4 folks at the dinette on a 25-foot boat and can't accommodate that with another arrangement? But I do have a solution: we'll do a standard arrangement (likely to seat three) and offer the whiz-bang everything moves to make another seat version as an option for those that just have to have it (and want to give up the comfortable swiveling helm seat for their copilot).

As for the Head, I agree with Matt, the Venture head is far superior to the CD 25 and a sink (compromise for the ladies) could be added by the owner if desired.

I'll see if I can track down a V26 to look at, or at least some photos.

Good storage space is a must, I wouldn't take up a cabinet to house a water tank, keep the water storage in the bow area where storage is of lower value.

Well, we're not talking about a large tank. A 20-gallon tank can be something like 21"L x 17"W x 14" high. That will fit into the bottom of a hanging locker and take up very little of the storage space (even less if we make a depression in the floor of the cabinet to lower the tank even more).

You can only put so much water in the bow before you start to affect the balance of the boat, and it's not very much. Especially if you carry a good rode with much chain. I wouldn't go above 20 gallons in the bow for sure and I'm much inclined to stay with the 15-gallon tank we already use though.

Money concerns rule the buyer and builder but construction quality is a must. The M215 we viewed was an example of quality and caring workmanship coupled with top quality build materials.

I know we're going to hit the selling price issue because we won't compromise on the quality, or I should more correctly say that we won't lower the quality from where it is now to meet a price point. We've compromised as much as we're willing to.

For kicks I looked at how low I could push the price of the Marinaut 215 if we used chopper gun construction, didn't core the hull, used less expensive fittings, etc. I found I could drive the price down about $4000 to $5000 dollars. A fair amount of money but it represents about 5% to 7% percent of the total purchase price of the boat when fully rigged and outfitted. So the question is: would you be willing to save 5% to 7% if it completely changes the boat from a top quality semi-custom boat to a run-of-the-mill production boat? I didn't think so, so we didn't (and won't) make that change.

Whatever the price is on the M25 it will just have to be what it is. I'd like to hit the $70K price range (base hull with standard equipment) but if I have to go to $80K to make it happen I will. I'll have to accept that some folks won't (or can't) purchase at that level but I think many will appreciate the higher quality and see the value in the price.

We still like the 215 better (we wan't one), maybe because we've lived with several boats like the proposed M25 and the M215 offers more flexibility for mountain and ocean use (in Oregon we don't have your lovely protected waters).

The reason we want to offer the Marinaut 25 is the same reason you like the Marinaut 215, just in reverse. One boat size doesn't fit everyone and we'd like to offer a choice; one we don't have now. For my own personal use the Marinaut 215 is the better choice but we've been asked about a 25-foot version enough to understand that size offers things that the smaller boat doesn't.

Good Luck with the project.

Thank you!

Les

 

[Les Lampman]

Man, I just don't know how to get a true 4-person dinette into an 8.5' wide boat without offsetting the passage way, sacrificing the width of the passageway, or sacrificing the side decks. It's not that I don't want that, just in all the drawings I've done and with measuring I've done I haven't come up with anything like a breakthrough yet.

What about being able to sit at the dinette on three sides? I have been thinking about doing that on the Tomcat and I think if I make the table slide a bit into the passageway when occupied, it would work.

Typically the seating surface that you sit on needs to be about 17" deep for comfort; it can be an inch or two smaller as a compromise. You also have to accommodate the seat back which is typically 3" to 4" thick. So if you take some minimums and make the back 3" and the seating base cushion 15" you need 18" in total depth.

Generally you allow about 24" in width for one person (minimum).

So now, if you take the u-shaped dinette we need 24" of width for the folks that will sit on the ends and we need 18" of depth for the folks that will sit along the back of the table. Added together we need 42" of width in the boat to accommodate a U-shaped dinette. Just about what you need for a (somewhat) comfortable traditional dinette.

The advantage of a u-shaped dinette is usually in length rather than width. If you have more available length in a particular boat than you have width you can seat more people.

In a typical 6' 6" dinette, if it's u-shaped you can still only seat 4 people. Two on the ends (facing each other) and two along the back facing the centerline. Each person ends up with a bit more elbow room than if sitting at a traditional dinette but the space taken up in the boat is about the same.

Les

 

[Les Lampman]

I also would like to see 4 foot wide dinette, but agree that it is very difficult--I would consider the head on the same side as the dinette, and make the galley narrower if necessary. With the head to Port, you can make it wider, and a better shower, and more room. Bring the helm seat out to the 2 foot width as necessary. The storage area, could be part of galley counter--and give both a better shower and dinette that way. (Galley counter goes all of the way form the folded down helm seat aft. You can design a "jog" to the port just aft of the helm seat--and forward of the dinette, to give more room there.

This is essentially what's in the original CD25 and Tom's CD27. The head is to port on entry and the dinette is forward of that. To starboard on entry is a closet and forward of that the galley and helm.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that layout but it requires several compromises: the main passageway must be offset to starboard, the main passageway must be narrow, the galley must be narrow, and the entry to the v-berth must be offset (or at least available) to starboard.

With regard to the Marinaut there's a big question about whether or not we can offset the door far enough to starboard. We can always make it work but it may mean a change in the way we do the cabin top.

One of the complaints I've fielded a lot regarding boats with narrow passageways is that one person always has to move in order for the other to get by; usually they either have to sit down or move out of the cabin. The Marinaut 215 has a large enough passageway that two folks can pass each other (or at least slide by comfortably). I'm not sure that's a good thing to give up on the Marinaut 25.

I think that there is a target group who has the desire to sleep two children and the narrow dinette is an issue. I have owned both narrow and wide isles, and like the idea of a fold down end of table/dinette.

Good point. I admit I was mostly focused on seating 4 adults for happy hour or dinner and wasn't concentrating on the sleeping issue for a couple of children. That's why I ask all these questions!

As for visibility aft--just not necessary

Until it comes to sales. When I was building the custom Signature Edition (heads up) of the RF-246 the only place I could get the head compartment in was in the aft port corner. Almost without exception everyone that came aboard and viewed the boat voiced a concern about restricted visibility.

There is a clear door, there is visibility thru the one window-especially if the stb side is low. I agree many trucks and RV's I drive have no visibility aft except side mirrors--boats don't have that. If essential: then a couple of hundred bucks and get a video camera!

Yeah, but you're also not moving at 60+ mph with traffic just a few feet away! In almost no boat over about 30 feet (unless on a bridge) have I ever had 360-degree visibility. I don't think it's necessary either but I sure get hammered on it if it's not there.

Most of the newer displays (chartplotter/GPS/Sounder) can display video input. I've often suggested a camera looking aft would work well.

Price--big point at $100,000 (plus taxes etc)--I personally think it will be some time until we find increased discretionary spending. The Rangers are successful, since they are getting folks who would have been buying a larger trawler.

Weight--again a big issue. The issue is both towing weight and fuel economy. Fuel will remain expensive. One can make boats much lighter, using cored materials. The cost can be not much more. Consider Nida core or other light materials--perhaps pre molded panels to get the weight down. The Decaboard is heavy.

I think that 100 gallons of fuel is minimal for this size bI a 150--unless the efficiency is far greater than the C Dory 25. The problem is not the "light boat"--but the boat loaded for cruising. I figure that 200 mile range when loaded for a month is almost essential for most areas to be very comfortable.

Something went missing in your last paragraph.

I totally agree about weight. The Marinaut 25 should be a lot more efficient than the CD25 because it's really a lighter and smaller boat. If we can hit our projected weight than a fully loaded M25 (full of fuel, water, and people/gear) should be in the 5,500 pound range.

Experience tells me that I can expect about 3 nmpg in a boat of this type and weight. If so then 67 gallons of fuel would give us a 200 mile range and 80 gallons would give us a 20% margin above that. That's easy to accommodate on the M25 and 100 gallons is the goal.

Water--40 gallons is plenty--I did a Transpac with 10 crew--15 days and 50 gallons of water--we had some left over. There are many ways to conserve water. We did lots of Mexico trips with 20 to 40 gallons of water
The extra expense and plumbing of dock side hook up is not worth it. I have had boats up to 62 feet with no dock side water--and 25 foot boats with dock side water--never used it.

Water heater--consider building in a 2 to 3 gallon tank, which will run on an EU 1000 or EU 2000 Honda. The 6 gallon tanks are large and heavy. Plus take up storage space.

This is going to be a light, simple boat...the standards will not include shore power, water heater, refrigerator, or the like. Within reason we can add those things as options if folks want them. I'm going for a Marinaut 215 with a head compartment, not a full-blown heavy cruiser (at least not as standard). The boat will take the weight and the complexity but it sort of misses the point. I have no intention of competing with the likes of a Ranger Tug 25; different vision and different mission.

Les

 

[Les Lampman]

Since we pulled out the tape measure in a few previous posts. How about hanging the OB on an Armstrong bracket? Transform the motor well into deck space / fishbox / storage. Extend the cabin and build a U shaped dinette on the port side…
Regards,
Dave

NO! Oh, and No, No, No!

Ah, well I really meant NO!!!

The only two applications where engine brackets make any sense are: 1) for manufacturers that want to make one hull and offer it with inboard power, I/O power, or outboard power, and 2) for manufacturers of specific hull types like deep-v and flats boats. We don't fit in either category.

It would be cheaper and easier for me to just make the boat longer. Once the mold is built nothing costs less than another 30" of fiberglass.

If you want a Marinaut 275 (which is the length the M25 would be with a bracket) let me know!

(Please take this in the irascible manner it was intended.)

Les

 

[Grumpy]

Les,

Sounds like a great idea and I am sure you will get all the suggestions/permutations possible from this very knowledgeable group.

There is nothing magic about the number 25. As you well know our "245" is actually 30 ft overall and that is what you pay for in moorage and have to trailer, park, store etc.

I understand the cost/weight/ft argument as a build cost, but if you are looking for a couple of inches here and there for "convenience(s)" I'm sure you are not stuck on 25ft. and maybe the answer is 26.

Total operating cost is becoming a bigger factor than in the past so you are right on the ball in keeping up the high quality to retain resale value and keeping the weight low to reduce running/towing costs.

Having just "unloaded" ours, I am willing to bet that very few of us have any idea of the actual weight that we add when given the option of "extra" space. Seems like we fill up the spare room at home when we empty the boat or RV :shock:
Anyone figure out the added weight/cost of a full blackwater tank :roll: (That should start some discussion). :lol:

Merv

 

[Les Lampman]

I like the idea of a U-shape dinette with a table that can slide out into the aisle... not an uncommon use on RVs, especially Class Bs.

I like the idea but I still haven't figured out how to make it work in an 8.5' wide boat. In an RV you don't lose a foot to the side decks, and a foot in this case is a big deal. It really takes about 48" to make the u-shaped dinette work and if you use that for the u-shaped dinette then you've only got 18" left for the passageway by the time you leave room for the starboard side deck and galley/helm. An 18" passageway is doable but tight (and it has to be offset to starboard).

And while we're on the subject of RVs, make the cruising boat more like an RV: put the water switch where you USE the water, not on the front panel. Put bright lighting over the galley and dinette. Make the showerhead functional (not a toilet sprayer) with a decent flow blocking switch so the water doesn't go cold between sprays. Make the head door NOT leak when using the shower.

Good thoughts!

Put the Wallas (or other stove top) to the side or mounted back further to better utilize the limited counter space.

A Wallas works better when it's mounted further back on the counter. When we've done that in the past the complaint is that we used up all the good space at the back of the counter for the Wallas and the space in front of it is useless. Now we ask folks to tell us where they want it when we install them.

Put a pull-out faucet/sprayer on the sink. Better storage (racks) under the galley. A smaller water heater to better utilize storage. Make an inverter a factory option. Make the boat "turn key" for cruising, and those who want to cruise will be drawn to the boat.

Well, considering that each Marinaut is built one-at-a-time for each customer and that we're both the manufacturer and the dealer folks can have just about whatever they want as a "factory option". We've long been known for delivering fully cruise-ready boats so it's really no different now.

Consider a "fishing option" for those who don't need all the cruising amenities.

That's really the standard boat since standard equipment list will not include all the cruising goodies, which we can add for folks that what them.

Most of the above suggestions would cost very little if designed into the boat. I truly appreciate the fact that you are soliciting ideas from the folks who would be your target market. :thup :thup

Best wishes,
Jim B.

Thanks Jim. I'm really trying here.

The biggest challenge so far is the "concept" of the Marinaut 25. So many folks seemed to like the C-Dory 22 but wished they could get it with a head compartment, and they didn't want something as big and as expensive as the C-Dory 25. Now that we have the Marinaut 215 that's what I'm trying to offer; a M215 with a head compartment. I'm trying like the dickens to keep it light and simple to keep the price down, to keep the power requirement down, and to make it available to more tow vehicles. If I add everything that the C-Dory 25 had then we're right back to having a larger, heavier, more expensive boat.

I guess the most difficult part is visualizing all this. If we could set the three boats (the M215, the CD25, and the M25) next to each other the sense of size that you'd get from each would put them in the order of (smallest to largest): the M215, the M25, and the CD25. The M25 would look small next to the CD25; it's the same length but it's not nearly so bulky or tall. All we're really doing is stretching the M215 out and giving it just a little bit more height to keep it in proportion. We're also making it 6" wider but you can really "see" that when looking at the boats in profile.

So rather than thinking of the M25 like a CD25 cruiser it should be thought of as a Marinaut 215 with a head compartment. It's not my intention that it compete directly with a CD25. It's not going to come with shore power, a refrigerator, water heater, and all that stuff. That can all be added (heck, we can do that on a CD22 or M215) but it isn't part of the standard package. The M25 will be for folks that want simplicity, light weight, and good economy and don't want the weight, cost, and complexity of something like the CD25.

Someone tell me if I'm missing the whole thing here. Is there an interest in a boat like I'm describing (especially from CD22 owners) or is everyone wanting an alternative to the CD25 with all that implies (all the cruising stuff)?

To help you help me...if we make the M25 a full on cruiser with all the cruising goodies standard we're talking about a $120K boat (fully loaded with electronics, etc) and not something in the $90K to $100K range.

Les

 

[Aurelia]

Anyone figure out the added weight/cost of a full blackwater tank :roll: (That should start some discussion). :lol:
Merv[/quote]

Thats just one of the reasons why I took ours out. I have dealt with external holding tanks on RVs and boats and hate them. Porta-potti, over-under tank, or composter are all good solutions on boats this size. And pumpout fittings are great as well provided there is space for hose routing.

 

[Dora~Jean]

I too had my holding tank removed, actually had them not install it in the first place, my porta potti is just fine, actually wonderful for my needs. No shower either, I prefer the sun-shower and let it run overboard out the scuppers. I've tried to keep my boat light.

I VERY satisfied with my CD25, but have made a couple of mods to accommodate my usual 4-7 people per trip (the 7 number is usually with a couple of 8-10 yr olds). The mods have worked out very well for us.

I made alternate/extended positions both of the settee seats towards the aisle by making an "alternate" position for carrying larger groups. I utilized the wasted seat space that tucks under the side walkway/well. We seat 4 adults at the table, the rear seat being a bit tight so we put the smallest people there :wink: . You can see this mod in my photo album here starting with the 10th picture: http://www.c-brats.com/modules.php?...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php.

I also built a new table out of the same materials as factory (melamine on both sides at home depot, 2 ft wide), but extended it's length by 7 inches (I think). Yes, it interferes with the aisle passageway when you have to pass another at the sink/stove area -- but hey, we're all family, right? A better solution would be a folding extension section like Bob suggested.

I'm reluctant to put 2 kids on the dinette at night for fear of one of them falling to the floor (it has happened), or use a bed-guard that can be purchased that tucks under the seat cushions and provides a short barrier -- too much hassle. So I put an adult on that bed, 2 adults up front with 1 or 2 kids, works fine, and another on the floor. If carrying 7, we put 2 adults outside in the cockpit under the bimini on an air mattress, and that works good also here in sunny SoCal.

 

[Les Lampman]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the great ideas! I think we can work with the sliding seat top idea quite well. The extension on the table isn't difficult to deal with either.

But...here's another questions for y'all:

Right now (as it's drawn up) the forward seat on the passenger side is a helm seat just like the operator's side. It's the same arrangement we use on the Marinaut 215; the copilot seat swivels and slides fore-and-aft.

My question is...would you give that up (would your co-pilot) to have another double seat there?

Les

 

[starcrafttom]

Steve have you given any thought to just putting the kids in a tent on the beach. they would love it I'm sure. Wehn ever my son james brought freinds with him thats what we did. they get a little freedom experince the out doors and I get a good nights sleep.

sorry for the side trip back to the boat designs.

 

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of the Marinaut 25. It fills the niche between the 23 and 26 Venture. 90% of the time I fish with buddies, 10% of the time I take my wife and kids to play.

I say,

stripped down to keep it light and cost effective
shower, hot water, don't care if the head is pump out or portable
light to tow with my pathy (6000lbs tow capacity)
Dinette and berth for 4 eat/play card and two sleep. double seat copilot

Stefan

 

[Aurelia]

A double seat with reversing ability like on the 25 cruiser would be fine instead of a single helm-like seat. Be smart on the height so users don't have to sit on a huge booser to see out the front window under way. The height sucks on our 25 and raising that whole side would have increased the storage below as well.

 

[rogerbum]

I too would like to have table that 4 people could eat at. This is something I would use quite often - especially when on a long fishing trip. I fished 4 guys out of the Tomcat quite often this summer. The way the Tomcat is configured, the forward bench seat is wide enough (just barely) to seat 2 but the aft bench seat is too narrow for that. As a result, at all lunches and dinners, one guy ate standing up or sitting on a chair in the cockpit. That's one of the reasons I was so interested in the jump seat on the prototype M215. Two jump seats like that + a small foldout table extension would have made meals on board much easier. Typically at meal time, everyone but the cook/server is sitting down so the loss of some aisle space isn't a big deal.

Also, I agree that being able to sleep 2 on the converted table berth would be a plus for families with 2 kids. Even in the Tomcat, we can only comfortably sleep 3 - 2 in the main birth and one on the table berth. More than that requires a cot in the cockpit or a tent on shore. Finally, anything you can do to make the back of the bench seats adjustable fore to aft so that a normal human can sit on them would be greatly appreciated. In almost all boats I have seen, the goal of making the seats/table into a bed has over ridden the goal of comfortable seating and the seat bottom cushions are far to deep for comfortable seating. We often wind up sticking an extra 4" + cushion behind our back to make it work.

 

[tpbrady]

Les,

I understand weight and efficiency are inversely related, but when I moved from a 22 to a 25, the thing I noticed the most was the stability of the 25 in seas compared to the 22. The mass of the 25 prevented 2-4 foot seas from pushing it around very much. Sometimes in my 22 I wish I had a seat belt. Will shaving 1500 lbs from the operating weight cause a significant change in cruising comfort as sea states increase?

 

[Chester]

The biggest challenge so far is the "concept" of the Marinaut 25. So many folks seemed to like the C-Dory 22 but wished they could get it with a head compartment, and they didn't want something as big and as expensive as the C-Dory 25. Now that we have the Marinaut 215 that's what I'm trying to offer; a M215 with a head compartment. I'm trying like the dickens to keep it light and simple to keep the price down, to keep the power requirement down, and to make it available to more tow vehicles. If I add everything that the C-Dory 25 had then we're right back to having a larger, heavier, more expensive boat.


So rather than thinking of the M25 like a CD25 cruiser it should be thought of as a Marinaut 215 with a head compartment. It's not my intention that it compete directly with a CD25. It's not going to come with shore power, a refrigerator, water heater, and all that stuff. That can all be added (heck, we can do that on a CD22 or M215) but it isn't part of the standard package. The M25 will be for folks that want simplicity, light weight, and good economy and don't want the weight, cost, and complexity of something like the CD25
Les

I like the concept, stick to your guns.
Adrienne has been talking about a bigger boat but the added complexity, cost and maintainance of systems puts me off. I love our simple C-D 22 Cruiser. If a system isn't there it won't break down.
Dinettes piss me off by there very existence though they seem to be a necessary evil on this class of boats. I would rather have some scheme where you dine on the settee using some sort of folding table. I have no idea of how or if this is possible or even advisable. Oh yeah, a forward facing navigator seat is a must.
Is the M215-250 aisle wider than a C-D 22's? IMO it dosen't need to be.

 

[Rob & Karen]

Les,

I was surprised to see that you are not competing with Ranger Tug or CD25, with no shore power, refridgerator, water heater, or the like. I guess I misunderstood the intended mission of the boat. If it is really going to be a CD22 or M215 with a head compartment, then it seems like we are talking about a $20k-$30k head....which is not something I would be willing to pay for. When I think of a larger boat, I am also thinking of something that I will be more comfortable spending extended time on while cruising. I am looking for the comforts that you plan to omit. It sounds like I may not be your target customer.

Rob