Extreme Beam boats

I've been looking into Canadian commercial fishing boat builders. It appears that the majority with offerings in the 40-50 foot range have pivoted to the extremely wide lobster boat style. 24-27 foot beams (or more) on these vessels. Singles with some semblance of a keel, and generally designed for displacement or moderate speeds.

Does anyone have any real-world experience with these style hulls and how they handle rough water conditions?

No experience on any of those hulls but I know the winter conditions they operate in. They routinely work in horrendous conditions off Atlantic Canada and the Grand Banks. Tons of them in St Johns ,Newfoundland.

Mako said:

I've been looking into Canadian commercial fishing boat builders. It appears that the majority with offerings in the 40-50 foot range have pivoted to the extremely wide lobster boat style. 24-27 foot beams (or more) on these vessels. Singles with some semblance of a keel, and generally designed for displacement or moderate speeds.

Does anyone have any real-world experience with these style hulls and how they handle rough water conditions?

Click to expand...

A beam that is 50% of the length-pretty wild. I'm guessing it's the same reason trawlers are getting wider-more room for "stuff". In this case, more holding for fish, crabs, etc. I'd be curious about the draft. Seems it would have to be proportional to the width. Good question about stability. Beam is considered for forward movement and efficiency, but I've never seen anything about stability. i.e. handling, righting ability etc.

I've seen these types of boats. No experience - my impression is they are "rule beaters" for some obscure fishing regulation.

Peter

mvweebles said:

I've seen these types of boats. No experience - my impression is they are "rule beaters" for some obscure fishing regulation.

Peter

Click to expand...

I seem to recall Mike (Northern Spy) was saying that design came from the Canadian fishing regs for a particular fishery. So as you note, the design was based on the rule, not seaworthiness.

Much like the old ton classes for sailboats. Hulls started to be designed to be as fast as the rules would allow. It produced some odd hull configurations.

Can you get slips for that beam without having to get really long slips?

Greetings,
I was on one many, many moons ago, probably at one of the NE boat shows. Purpose built (in Nova Scotia, Canada) pleasure craft on a beamy, commercial "lobster" hull. The ONLY thing I actually remember is the cavernous ER. One could only sit but the space was MASSIVE!

Last time I was up there talking to the fishermen, I was told that some Canadian fishing regulations were based on boat length. Nothing about beam. Hence if you want a bigger boat, you make it wider. I was in one yard where a guy showed me a boat which was being split down the middle and widened. He said they were doing that a lot. Since it was only waterline length which was counted, there were also a lot of boats with huge overhangs on the stern.

Not sure if this is still the case. But it's good to know the US isn't the only place with poorly thought-out regulations.

I suppose the first few built were to skirt regulations.
Having been on wide beam cats in rough seas and not feeling it, as compared to a monohull, there is a place for a wider platform for stability over fuel economy.

For say a 49ft trawler, an 18ft beam would be wide. But these fishing boats are minimum 24ft beam and some over 30ft. Obviously built to skirt regulations creatively. I can't imagine the directional stability challenges faced in heavy quartering seas or going downhill.

The lobster fishers I've talked to in Nova Scotia all love them. They say they're much more stable pulling traps, and the deck space for stacking traps is remarkable.

I think there are LOA restrictions on the Maritime lobster fisheries, which explains the evolution.

Viewers that have seen my opinions expressed on this site may know I sing the praises of my MS 34. Unlike most boat manufacturers , the 34 does not include the swim platform and pulpit etc. That being said, my MS with a 14ft 3in beam is hell on wheels in a big following sea.!

keith c said:

Viewers that have seen my opinions expressed on this site may know I sing the praises of my MS 34. Unlike most boat manufacturers , the 34 does not include the swim platform and pulpit etc. That being said, my MS with a 14ft 3in beam is hell on wheels in a big following sea.!

Click to expand...

Most fishing boats in this part of the world have the up swept hull at the stern-actually coming out of the water. My old boat, Krogen Manatee (designed after lobster boats) had this same feature. It was a dream in following seas. It would be nice to see pictures of the hulls described above.

Beam alone is definitely not an indicator of performance in following seas. Waterline beam at the stern is more relevant, but other factors in the hull shape, keel design (if the boat has a keel), rudder size, etc. all have a big effect. A more full bow shape will tolerate a broader stern in following seas, for example, as it won't dig in and want to bow steer as much when the stern gets lifted by a wave.

If there one takeaway from reading/seeing Junger's "The Perfect Storm," its that fishermen will sacrifice safety to bring more fish to market. I wouldn't read too much into their designs and especially their modifications.

We're not talking highly engineered America's Cup technology here.....

Peter

keith c said:

Viewers that have seen my opinions expressed on this site may know I sing the praises of my MS 34. Unlike most boat manufacturers , the 34 does not include the swim platform and pulpit etc. That being said, my MS with a 14ft 3in beam is hell on wheels in a big following sea.!

Click to expand...

Clarify. Is that a good or a bad thing?