Reply With QuoteEither HH aren't including standard inclusions (things like windscreens, fuel tanks, stainless fixtures etc) in the hull weight, HS are a heavier and potentially stronger build or someone is telling porkies.
Hi everyone...
On my perpetual quest to to one day buy a boat....
Could someone possibly explain why Haines Signatures are so heavy in comparison to Hunters?
I am looking at getting a 5 to 5.35m meter boat. Looking at Haines Hunter Profish and Haines Signature Fisher. I thought that the Signatures included engine weights but it does say hull weight on their spec.
HH 535 HH 495 HS 495 F HS 525 F Length 5.35 4.95 5.09 2.13 Beam 2.2 2.1 2.01 2.13 Hull Weight 650 500 705 770 Max Engine 130 90 100 115 kg/hp 5.0 5.6 7.1 6.7
Cheers,
John
Either HH aren't including standard inclusions (things like windscreens, fuel tanks, stainless fixtures etc) in the hull weight, HS are a heavier and potentially stronger build or someone is telling porkies.
Difficult to say, the figures are just put out by the manufacturers without any standards mentioned - i.e. what they include or exclude.
I have a Signature 493f and like the brochure says I'd say it would be 705kg including everything except fuel and motor. The Suzuki 70-100hp engines are 155kg and really suit the boat well, the hole-shot will be similar as they're all using the same block, it's just the top end of the rev range that differs. The DF70A will get you to 30kts, the DF90A about 35kts. The 495f is now rated to 100hp and might get another knot or two above the DF90A. Getting around Moreton bay I find low-20's is plenty and works well in most sea conditions. The SVDH hull is excellent but there's no getting around the fact that it's still a 5m 700kg boat when the chop really picks up! I've been across the Noosa bar and GC seaway and it rides and tracks really well, similarly I've also hit some big wakes from big Rivieras on the broadwater and it's never felt like you're going to toss a kid overboard!
I haven't been in a Haines Hunter to compare directly but the little Signature is a great boat.
Pretty sure signature weights include motor.
This old spec list gives a hint as there are numerous “superseded” models that closely relate to current hulls that show hull only weights.
http://www.signatureboats.com.au/boa...tinued-models/
I have recently had a HH 600r and currently have a HS 543rf. While the 543 suits my needs at the moment and is a great little boat, it is nowhere near the build bulk of the HH, even allowing for the length difference. I think the actual hull weight of the 543 is about 550kg, whereas the 600 was about 1150kg. You just have to thump the hulls to see the difference.
Sent from my iPad using Ausfish forums
Go to the boat show and walk around banging the boats with your fist, it will soon indicate which brands use the most glass in their builds, its certainly not everything you need to consider but its an interesting exercise all the same.
As hulls get longer, they obviously need to get thicker, if only to support their own weight and remove flex. So the weight gain is exponential, just as swof63 said above comparing the 543 to the 600. Just thumping the side of the hull is interesting, but its the bottom, transom and framing and bulkheads where the strength lies--unless you are talking about T-boned... my Caribbean was under 12mm thick on the side towards the transom where I drilled through for the bilge pump and baitwell drains. But the bottom was 25mm tapering up to 27mm where it tabbed onto the transom, where I drilled for the thru-hull and water inlet. The tops of the coaming were a minimum of 12mm, up to 20mm in places. The front bulkhead, where I just drilled a hole to get the winch cables through, is 25mm. I've had to re-buy a lot of bolts bought earlier and put aside for mounting stuff on this boat--the foredeck where the bollards etc mount is 40mm thick.
Like anything built in Australia its built for Australian conditions thick/solid/heavy duty etc.. that's how Australia was made before China came along
Good point. I will look into the inclusions.Originally Posted by scottar
HS says hull weight and HH says boat only which i interpret as no engine in both cases.
I just found it bizarre that HH 535 is bigger and lighter than HS 525. And on top of that can take a bigger engine.
Thus with the smaller engine and being heavier, the HS should be slower...
Both are made in Aus...
Thats my point the HH 535 is longer but 120kg lighter than the HS 525 ..something does not add up or I am missing something.
Yeah but u were asking why are Haines Hunter boats so heavy, there is a rule u go by to work out your boats horse power rating it goes hull width x hull length in foot = hp
my boats hull is 18 foot long by 7 foot wide = recommend 126hp outboard
its a world wide standard calculation the US marine use it in foot i'm sure there is a calculation in meters for us who use metric
I was asking why Haines Signatures were heavy. I also confuse the two names all the time!!! Refer to table above.
I was talking to a Haines Hunter rep and he explained that boats are HP rated based upon a test that determined how well the boat handled some sort of an acceleration test which involved a turn.
ring them and ask would be the easy way to find out
Modern transom rating will be weight as well as horsepower, it's shown on the build plate. The rating system changed way back ( nineties?) which is why you see so many older hulls with what look like ridiculously high ratings, ie, Swiftcraft Dominnator with 200hp max. Compare that to the current Reefrunner, 0.75 m longer, wider, and almost twice the hull weight--still rated at 200hp max (or 284kg) When people , when discussing repowering, say automatically to "go the max" ---maybe with the newer hulls, not necessarily the older ones.
When looking at barehull weight, just one extra lamination of glass mat over an entire hull could add 50kg. And these manufacturers are not working to a consistent standard when they quote "hull weight"--some are quoting a complete boat, minus motor and batteries,others almost a bare hull. There "should" be a consistent industry standard, but there doesn't appear to be, or it is being ignored--perhaps those with some insider knowledge would care to elaborate.
Anyway, I wouldn't get too hung up on it, because only two weights matter
A) The weight of the boat with everything on board, including full fuel, because that it what your are driving, and
B) how that relates to the trailer they want to put under it as part of some"killer deal" they are offering . Beware.
Test
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions