"Seaworthiness" - Nordhavn 62 vs 63

[SBarlow]

I am torn between the classic N62 and the "updated" N63 and one of the final deciding factors is each boat's capabilities in heavy seas (safety)

My general perception is as follows
- the 62 is faster, more hydrodynamically efficient and likely better in head seas
- the 62 has issues in a following sea due to the "bustle" - resolved in newer boats?
- the 62 has less desirable mechanical/engine room access
- the 63 has more volume/space, is lighter and a less favorable vertical weight distribution

Can anyone provide some solid feedback on this comparison?

If the 62 is a significantly better "sea boat" then I will likely lean that direction, despite the difference in creature comforts.

 

[Comodave]

Welcome aboard.

 

[guy with a boat]

I am torn between the classic N62 and the "updated" N63 and one of the final deciding factors is each boat's capabilities in heavy seas (safety)

My general perception is as follows
- the 62 is faster, more hydrodynamically efficient and likely better in head seas
- the 62 has issues in a following sea due to the "bustle" - resolved in newer boats?
- the 62 has less desirable mechanical/engine room access
- the 63 has more volume/space, is lighter and a less favorable vertical weight distribution

Can anyone provide some solid feedback on this comparison?

If the 62 is a significantly better "sea boat" then I will likely lean that direction, despite the difference in creature comforts.

Both are aft-pilothouse Nordhavns in the same general size range and have a family resemblance. Other than that, they don’t have much in common. I would think touring both would determine which is a better fit for you.

As far as solid feedback about ride/seaworthiness comparison? I have no idea, other than I would feel safe enough in either to go RTW, given the inclination to do so otherwise.

I own and have extensively used our 63 but have very little time on a 62. We have been in a large range of weather sea conditions and never worried about the boat for a second. I think 62 owners would say the same. Both have done ocean crossings fairly routinely and I have never heard significant complaints about either.

I wish I could more specifically answer your question, but that’s all I’ve got. Best of luck with your decision. Either choice is an excellent answer as far as I’m concerned.

 

[bkcorwin]

Out of curiosity, guy with a boat, what does your boat dead hang at in the slings? I see all the GT numbers but im curious as to weight. Two months ago we hung in the slings at 160k lbs.

In one of the yacht tech videos theres a clip of a 62 and a 63 running side by side. The 63 appears to have more pitching motion. However its difficult to say if it really matters. As Guy with a boat says both boats are sea worthy and I'd have no problem going around in either.

To be honest the biggest difference between the boats in my mind is where space is allocated.

The 63 has a much bigger lazarette, the 62s lazarette is pretty terrible.

The 63 has a stand up engine room but less width because of the way the tankage is laid out.

In my mind the 62 feels like a bigger boat. The extra foot and a half of beam of the 62 is apparent in the salon though the 62 tapers a lot more as you move aft.

The 62 loses the lower "utility area" of the 63.

The 62 is a lower profile boat.

The 62 is a faster boat.

I don't think any of the boats are great in a following sea TBH. I'd be curious if the bustle actually makes much of a difference in the comparison between 62 and 63 as the 63 carries a lot of buoyancy aft. A better question may be non bustle 62 vs bustle 62.

Lastly, the thing to be aware of with 62s, is that for the most part they are pretty old boats. You dont list your budget, but buying a 63 probably puts the average age ten plus years newer than the average 62. Gelcoat is getting thin on the older boats as they get polished over the years. Several have recently gone to paint to address the cosmetics and I know of a couple others who are thinking about it seriously.

 

[sunchaser]

A trip into the ER spaces in each is a big reveal for me. The N62 is less accommodating by far IMHO. We much prefer the forward sight lines in the N63. The overall layout and secondary machinery space in the N63 shows it is a decades newer design.

Set my above thoughts aside and there are plenty of N62s out there running around. Personally I’d go for an N57 before the 62.

 

[twistedtree]

Some new stuff above for me. I didn't realize the 62 was wider than the 63. I would have guessed the opposite. And I'm a bit surprised by the weight difference as well. My 60, which is the same hull as the 63 but with different topsides, was in the low 100k lbs range. With or without fuel and water matters when comparing since that can be 25,000 lbs.


The only observation I'll make is that after then 63 was introduced, nobody ordered anymore 62s, even though it was still available to build until a few years ago when the molds were finally scrapped. So it's clear how new buyers sided.


And last, a recommendation that day to day fit and comfort I think are the most important thing. The boat needs to be able to do everything you want, but even the most intrepid cruisers spend the vast majority of their time in calm coastal waters. I think a boat needs to be capable of the most extreme use you envision, but optimized for the most common use.

 

[Shrew]

And last, a recommendation that day to day fit and comfort I think are the most important thing. The boat needs to be able to do everything you want, but even the most intrepid cruisers spend the vast majority of their time in calm coastal waters. I think a boat needs to be capable of the most extreme use you envision, but optimized for the most common use.

I can't agree more. The boat spends the least amount of time running. I can always wait for weather to pass. I can't add a foot to a salon, stateroom or engine room.

 

[bkcorwin]

we were 160k mid fuel and water. We'd topped off in Sitka early in the season and then ran around AK and back to the yard in Anacortes.

Its a pretty similar weight number ive heard from other 62s as well.

Yeah I don't think anyone will argue that the engine room on a 62 is great. That said, its never been the issue that I couldn't work around. I've put in and hauled a lot of equipment out of the engine room and ive always managed. Reasonably large pieces of gear too. I think the real advantage in engine rooms doesn't really happen until you get to the 68.

in my mind the big advantage you get in the newer engine rooms, and the 57 for that matter, isn't really height but storage. This is also probably why the 62 went away in lieu of the modern designs. The 62 is a bigger boat than the 63, but probably has less interior volume and storage space than a 63.

 

[SBarlow]

I'm happy to be here!

 

[SBarlow]

we were 160k mid fuel and water. We'd topped off in Sitka early in the season and then ran around AK and back to the yard in Anacortes.

Its a pretty similar weight number ive heard from other 62s as well.

Yeah I don't think anyone will argue that the engine room on a 62 is great. That said, its never been the issue that I couldn't work around. I've put in and hauled a lot of equipment out of the engine room and ive always managed. Reasonably large pieces of gear too. I think the real advantage in engine rooms doesn't really happen until you get to the 68.

in my mind the big advantage you get in the newer engine rooms, and the 57 for that matter, isn't really height but storage. This is also probably why the 62 went away in lieu of the modern designs. The 62 is a bigger boat than the 63, but probably has less interior volume and storage space than a 63.

I admit I haven't been on board either the 62 or 63 but will do so next month. My perception (from afar) is that the 63 (and more modern Nordhavns) have evolved, from buyer demand, to be more space/volume oriented at the expense of hull efficiency, stability and overall "seaworthiness". That being said, those compromises are reasonable considering the business model and the requirements of 90% of the customers. IMO, with the 62, I do like the extra knot of speed and the additional margin of error that the other variables may provide.

 

[SBarlow]

I can't agree more. The boat spends the least amount of time running. I can always wait for weather to pass. I can't add a foot to a salon, stateroom or engine room.

As much as I agree with that statistic, I dont agree with that philosophy. Maybe when weather reports become 100% accurate, 2 weeks out, I will change my mind, but for someone who wants to truly do extensive cruising, there are going to be long passages with calculated risk. I, personally, want a beast under my feet to get me home if the **** hits the fan....

 

[SBarlow]

Both are aft-pilothouse Nordhavns in the same general size range and have a family resemblance. Other than that, they don’t have much in common. I would think touring both would determine which is a better fit for you.

As far as solid feedback about ride/seaworthiness comparison? I have no idea, other than I would feel safe enough in either to go RTW, given the inclination to do so otherwise.

I own and have extensively used our 63 but have very little time on a 62. We have been in a large range of weather sea conditions and never worried about the boat for a second. I think 62 owners would say the same. Both have done ocean crossings fairly routinely and I have never heard significant complaints about either.

I wish I could more specifically answer your question, but that’s all I’ve got. Best of luck with your decision. Either choice is an excellent answer as far as I’m concerned.

Thanks for the reply!
How do you find your 63 in a head sea? Does it lose a lot of momentum when hitting the front of waves? Similarly, do you find that it tracks well in following seas, or does the tail swing a bit?

 

[Mako]

As much as I agree with that statistic, I dont agree with that philosophy. Maybe when weather reports become 100% accurate, 2 weeks out, I will change my mind, but for someone who wants to truly do extensive cruising, there are going to be long passages with calculated risk. I, personally, want a beast under my feet to get me home if the **** hits the fan....

Hmm, well sorta. I depends on how much sh*t you expect to hit the fan. Are you really going to put yourself into a position where you get hit by a hurricane/typhone/cyclone? How many sailors in little blow-boats have circumnavigated and over years and years have never been in survival conditions? Probably most of them.

If you are planning on taking your NH down to the Antarctic peninsula then that might be the exception, but otherwise, you may be over designing for a case that will never happen, or can be avoided, 99.99% of the next 20 years that you own and cruise that boat.

I would imagine that both of those vessels are fully capable of accomplishing any travel you wish, given proper planning, maintenance and prudence with picking weather windows.

Which vessel fits your needs for the 99.99% of the time you will be spending on it, and which fits your budget?

 

[SBarlow]

Hmm, well sorta. I depends on how much sh*t you expect to hit the fan. Are you really going to put yourself into a position where you get hit by a hurricane/typhone/cyclone? How many sailors in little blow-boats have circumnavigated and over years and years have never been in survival conditions? Probably most of them.

If you are planning on taking your NH down to the Antarctic peninsula then that might be the exception, but otherwise, you may be over designing for a case that will never happen, or can be avoided, 99.99% of the next 20 years that you own and cruise that boat.

I would imagine that both of those vessels are fully capable of accomplishing any travel you wish, given proper planning, maintenance and prudence with picking weather windows.

Which vessel fits your needs for the 99.99% of the time you will be spending on it, and which fits your budget?

Well, this might answer the question of "how much **** I expect to hit the fan" from a due diligence perspective;
- a land based 5 day forecast - 90% accurate
- a land based 7 day forecast - 80% accurate
- a land based 10+ day forecast - 50% accurate
** marine forecasts are much less accurate due to far less data - exacerbated as farther from shore

Just for example.. an 8 knt boat covers 1344 naut miles in 7 days, so any open water passage of this distance (or greater) has a +20% to +50% chance of "unforcasted" weather (good or bad). To me, that is significant.

 

[guy with a boat]

Well, this might answer the question of "how much **** I expect to hit the fan" from a due diligence perspective;
- a land based 5 day forecast - 90% accurate
- a land based 7 day forecast - 80% accurate
- a land based 10+ day forecast - 50% accurate
** marine forecasts are much less accurate due to far less data - exacerbated as farther from shore

Just for example.. an 8 knt boat covers 1344 naut miles in 7 days, so any open water passage of this distance (or greater) has a +20% to +50% chance of "unforcasted" weather (good or bad). To me, that is significant.

Beyond the current weather forecast, long range cruisers also consider the season they are in relative to the body of water that they want to cross. Want to explore the Bering Sea? Probably best to do that in summer and not winter. Shy away from long crossings in hurricane paths in season. With some planning and care, you can make the odds of encountering really bad conditions be pretty low.

 

[SBarlow]

Beyond the current weather forecast, long range cruisers also consider the season they are in relative to the body of water that they want to cross. Want to explore the Bering Sea? Probably best to do that in summer and not winter. Shy away from long crossings in hurricane paths in season. With some planning and care, you can make the odds of encountering really bad conditions be pretty low.

I absolutely agree!
As a side note... storm path tracking has a terrible accuracy. Might as well use a Ouija Board if on a boat at 8 knts and have to guess how to avoid an unexpected storm.

 

[guy with a boat]

Out of curiosity, guy with a boat, what does your boat dead hang at in the slings? I see all the GT numbers but im curious as to weight. Two months ago we hung in the slings at 160k lbs.

I've been busy enough at haul outs that I've never asked or made note of the weight in the slings. I'll have to do that next time. We are likely similar in weight to Peter's 60, so maybe 20% less than your 62's 160K.

 

[mvweebles]

Well, this might answer the question of "how much **** I expect to hit the fan" from a due diligence perspective;
- a land based 5 day forecast - 90% accurate
- a land based 7 day forecast - 80% accurate
- a land based 10+ day forecast - 50% accurate
** marine forecasts are much less accurate due to far less data - exacerbated as farther from shore

Just for example.. an 8 knt boat covers 1344 naut miles in 7 days, so any open water passage of this distance (or greater) has a +20% to +50% chance of "unforcasted" weather (good or bad). To me, that is significant.

With all due respect, how much open ocean cruising have you done? Your math is fine but irrelevant. What's missing is ability to adjust while underway.

Example. The Sunseeker 54 that is current 600 nms from Hawaii. He put a bunch of deck fuel aboard which still may not be sufficient. Faces with a well-forcasr 960 mb low pressure system to his north, had he had sufficient range, he could have easily diverted southward. Instead, he had to cut through 16-foot/12-sec seas. In his case, simple range would have made the difference between a boat that was seaworthy vs one that was not. Nothing to do with the hull design - he made it through some pretty massive seas, though it remains to be seen what type of shape the boat is in when it arrives.

The N62 was the second design off Jeff Leishman's drafting board. He was a novice naval architect at the time. The first boat, the N46, was the equivalent of a final exam project for his NA credential, was a great looking boat but had some notable design shortcomings, not the least of which was placement of tanks were far aft in my opinion which, when combined with a find bow, made the boat hobby horse a bit in headseas, especially when running heavy. The tanks were moved later in the production run.

I can almost guarantee you that the N63 has some refinemenfs that demonstrate maturity of Leishman as a NA, and PAE as a world class builder. That doesn't mean the N46/N62 are not great boats - obviously several have circumnavigated which speaks for itself. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

This is a crazy question. If you have a million bucks, you buy a N62. If you have double that or more, you buy a newer boat - the N63 Not about seaworthiness per se. Both are fit for purpose.

Peter

 

[guy with a boat]

My perception (from afar) is that the 63 (and more modern Nordhavns) have evolved, from buyer demand, to be more space/volume oriented at the expense of hull efficiency, stability and overall "seaworthiness". That being said, those compromises are reasonable considering the business model and the requirements of 90% of the customers. IMO, with the 62, I do like the extra knot of speed and the additional margin of error that the other variables may provide.

With only a couple of exceptions, I would be comfortable that anything Nordhavn has built will take more of a beating than I can. The whole design philosophy has been based on building stout and capable recreational boats. They earned the reputation that they have by not under-building anything.

At their core, they are strong boxes with small and thick windows, that are built to stay together and keep the water on the outside. Those are the important factors if you ever find yourself in terrible seas. Comfort and livability in bad conditions and good are where personal preferences enter the picture.

Choosing between these models based on seaworthiness is a little like choosing a sports car because it will go 198mph instead of 196. At some point the difference doesn't really matter.

 

[SBarlow]

With all due respect, how much open ocean cruising have you done? Your math is fine but irrelevant. What's missing is ability to adjust while underway.

Example. The Sunseeker 54 that is current 600 nms from Hawaii. He put a bunch of deck fuel aboard which still may not be sufficient. Faces with a well-forcasr 960 mb low pressure system to his north, had he had sufficient range, he could have easily diverted southward. Instead, he had to cut through 16-foot/12-sec seas. In his case, simple range would have made the difference between a boat that was seaworthy vs one that was not. Nothing to do with the hull design - he made it through some pretty massive seas, though it remains to be seen what type of shape the boat is in when it arrives.

The N62 was the second design off Jeff Leishman's drafting board. He was a novice naval architect at the time. The first boat, the N46, was the equivalent of a final exam project for his NA credential, was a great looking boat but had some notable design shortcomings, not the least of which was placement of tanks were far aft in my opinion which, when combined with a find bow, made the boat hobby horse a bit in headseas, especially when running heavy. The tanks were moved later in the production run.

I can almost guarantee you that the N63 has some refinemenfs that demonstrate maturity of Leishman as a NA, and PAE as a world class builder. That doesn't mean the N46/N62 are not great boats - obviously several have circumnavigated which speaks for itself. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

This is a crazy question. If you have a million bucks, you buy a N62. If you have double that or more, you buy a newer boat - the N63 Not about seaworthiness per se. Both are fit for purpose.

Peter

Thanks for the honest reply!
My resume is definitely missing the open ocean cruising (soon to be remedied!) but I do have 45 years of great lakes (mostly) and coastal cruising... and not an insignificant amount. I definitely don't claim to know what I dont know. The entire purpose of this thread is to try to understand if there is a material "seaworthiness" difference between the 62 and 63 because I intend (but I cant predict the future) to cruise extensively and do a circumnavigation. I love both boats and understand that both are capable, but I am trying to dig into the "nitty gritty" as part of my own buying process and due diligence. I was hoping that somebody might have experience on both boats and have a preference or quality feedback on which they prefer in weather.

 

[mvweebles]

I absolutely agree!
As a side note... storm path tracking has a terrible accuracy. Might as well use a Ouija Board if on a boat at 8 knts and have to guess how to avoid an unexpected storm.

Well, if you ignore Pilot Charts or have a schedule, then you are indeed ripe for a bad experience.

Major storms veer unexpectedly, but rarely arise from nowhere (Otis in Acapulco may show that is changing).

If I believed I needed to be prepared for the Perfect Storm on any given voyage, I wouldn't own a boat. My tolerance for bad weather stops at Force 4. If I were into crossing oceans, would do all I could to avoid Force 7 but would accept it's a possibility. Beyond that, I'll buy a motorhome and stay off the water.

Peter

 

[twistedtree]

I admit I haven't been on board either the 62 or 63 but will do so next month. My perception (from afar) is that the 63 (and more modern Nordhavns) have evolved, from buyer demand, to be more space/volume oriented at the expense of hull efficiency, stability and overall "seaworthiness". That being said, those compromises are reasonable considering the business model and the requirements of 90% of the customers. IMO, with the 62, I do like the extra knot of speed and the additional margin of error that the other variables may provide.

I wouldn't say that stability or seaworthiness is in any way compromised on the newer models. But the speed/efficiency of the 57 and 62 is impressive.


Visually, newer Nordhavns can seen top heavy, but I am reminded every day that with the exception of the pilot house, all of the living space is at the waterline, maybe 2' above the waterline, or 5' below the waterline. And all the machinery and tankage is below the waterline.


And I think Brian is right that price will be a factor, with 63s commanding 2x to 3x the price of a 62.

 

[SBarlow]

With only a couple of exceptions, I would be comfortable that anything Nordhavn has built will take more of a beating than I can. The whole design philosophy has been based on building stout and capable recreational boats. They earned the reputation that they have by not under-building anything.

At their core, they are strong boxes with small and thick windows, that are built to stay together and keep the water on the outside. Those are the important factors if you ever find yourself in terrible seas. Comfort and livability in bad conditions and good are where personal preferences enter the picture.

Choosing between these models based on seaworthiness is a little like choosing a sports car because it will go 198mph instead of 196. At some point the difference doesn't really matter.

Thanks again!
If the difference between the 62 and 63 is really that small, then I agree that it doesn't matter (and I would lean towards the 63 because of the volume)... I'm just trying to get feedback as to what the difference really is. I dont want to get anybody "lost in the weeds" here and misunderstanding my thread's intent.

 

[cafesport]

Just buy the one your wife likes and you’ll be fine.

 

[SBarlow]

Just buy the one your wife likes and you’ll be fine.

Now I'm really gonna get this thread off topic! LOL!

No wife... so this is all on me! A floating, world travelling, trans oceanic man-cave!

My GF and guests can have all the opinions they want.

 

[fgarriso]

Now I'm really gonna get this thread off topic! LOL!

No wife... so this is all on me! A floating, world travelling, trans oceanic man-cave!

My GF and guests can have all the opinions they want.

Then the N62 or N63 may be a little more boat you would want to single hand

 

[SBarlow]

Then the N62 or N63 may be a little more boat you would want to single hand

I agree. I wont be single handing on any significant trips.

 

[bkcorwin]

While the 62 and 63 may be similar and in the same size class the boats all kind of ride differently so its worth seeing if you can go on some rides. An example is the 55. People love that boat, but when I rode around on one I was not impressed compared to the 62.

 

[bkcorwin]

You could/can totally single hand a 62 if need be.

 

[SBarlow]

While the 62 and 63 may be similar and in the same size class the boats all kind of ride differently so its worth seeing if you can go on some rides. An example is the 55. People love that boat, but when I rode around on one I was not impressed compared to the 62.

It is my understanding that the 63 is an extended 55.. and I've heard similar opinions about the ride.

I absolutely want to get a chance to get a few rides and talk to some owners.