CONTINUOUSWAVE

I believe the CONQUEST 21 was only produced from 1998 to 2001.

Q1: Was there a flaw in the design?

Q2: Are the larger boats just superior?

Q3: Why did Boston Whaler stop making the CONQUEST 21?

Q4: What are your thoughts?

Do not confuse the CONQUEST 21 with the 205 EASTPORT or 205 CONQUEST [introduced c.2005--jimh].

In a post [to the old forum at http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/004559.html] a comment was made:

MamboMinnow wrote:I looked at the Eastport/Conquest 205 when it first came out. However, I chose to go with the 1998-2000 circa Conquest 21 as it had a bigger cabin with flexible seating configurations and a larger cabin. The tradeoff was less cockpit space back aft.

Also, the gunwales on the Conquest 205 are lower than that on the Conquest 21. The family felt more secure particularly in open water.

If you are a cruiser, you'd like my set up better. A fisherman would like the larger open deck space aft on the newer Conquest 205.

[Boston Whaler stopped production of the CONQUEST 21 in c.2001] probably because they were not selling well.

I doubt anyone outside of Boston Whaler senior management knows the particulars of the decision to stop producing the CONQUEST 21 in c.2001. As speculated above, low sales volume may have been an influence.

The CONQUEST 21 appears to have used an Accutrack (sometimes AccuTrack) hull. That hull was in use on many models in that production era. Boston Whaler has often had a similar length and weight, trailerable, cabin boat in their line, which suggests there was nothing particularly odd about the CONQUEST 21.

I really was not much aware of the CONQUEST 21 model before this mention of it. It seems like a rather obscure boat. The existence of a very similar model that was two-feet longer might have also been an influence. If the price difference between a 21 and a 23 was not too great, perhaps the CONQUEST 23 was selling better.

There was a time when Boston Whaler kept particular hulls in production for decades. My conjecture was this was perhaps related to the cost of producing hull molds for their Unibond hulls. But in the recent decades it appears that the cost of hull molds must not be much of a factor any more, as models come and go with rather short lifespans. Perhaps the CONQUEST 21 was just on the leading edge of that trend.

I am curious:

Q5: is there a known design flaw [in the CONQUEST 21] for me to be on the look-out for?

Q6: does [the CONQUEST 21 boat have] a reputation?

I am not aware of any design flaw in the CONQUEST 21 nor of any particular "reputation" associated with it, other than being a Boston Whaler boat and inheriting all of those reputations, true and false, that accompany a Boston Whaler boat.

I do observe that the decade of the 1990's was a very unusual period in the history of Boston Whaler. Let me give a time line of which company owned Boston Whaler in this era:

1989 to 1993: Reebok Shoe
1994 to 1996: Meridian Sports
1996 to present: Brunswick, Inc.

The Reebok shoe company owner and the Meridian ski-boat owner were probably not a good fit for Boston Whaler, a conclusion supported by the very short tenure of each of their ownerships.

My inference from the three changes in ownership: the 1990's were a rather turbulent decade for Boston Whaler and its employees.

In particular, the head designer of Boston Whaler boats at the beginning of the decade was Peter Van Lancker, replacing the long-serving Bob Dougherty who was forced out in a rather unceremonious very fast exit one day quite by surprise. There was also some design influence from SeaRay boats.

Van Lancker left in 1996, and a team of designers seemed to be in place who I presume produced the Accutrack (sometimes AccuTrack) hull.

So during the 1990's Boston Whaler was producing hulls with four significantly different designs: the classic vestigial twin-sponsor round-bottom hulls (Fisher and odd-number model lengths 9, 11, 13, 15, 17) , the classic vestigial twin-sponsor moderate V-bottom hulls (Dougherty and even-number model lengths 18, 20, 22, 24/25 along with the biggeer 25 and 27 hulls), the sharper and deeper V-hulls with straight transoms of Van Lancker (which never seemed to merit a special naming but were seen in the 21-foot and 23-foot OUTRAGE and WALKAROUND hulls), and the reverse transom Accutrack hulls (seen in the CONQUEST 21 and others) from what seems to be a team of designers.

Also in this decade the main production site moved to Edgewater, Florida, from Massachusetts, which likely resulted in an influx of new production workers, although many key people stayed on and moved to Florida from Massachusetts.

The arrival of Brunswick as owner of Boston Whaler in 1996 began the move to mandatory tie-in sales of Mercury engines, which resulted in many long-time Boston Whaler dealers being forced out due to association with other engine brands and lack of un-rigged boats from the factory.

The CONQUEST 21 model was among the first to feature the reversed-slope "Euro-transom" look, use an Accutrack hull, be built in Florida, and to be sold with a mandatory tie-in of a Mercury outboard engine. With an eye to those factors, one might infer that sales of this model might have been facing some obstacles from traditional Boston Whaler buyers.

For more details on the history of ownership, see my article

The Boston Whaler Company
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/history/whaler.html

Regarding the influence of Peter Van Lancker on Boston Whaler, his c.v. from his LinkedIn page shows:

1984 to 1989, Black Watch Boats, President
1989 to 1996, Boston Whaler, VP Engineering and Design
1996 to 2001, Outboard Marine Company (OMC) VP Boat Group Engineering and Design
2001 to present, Hunt Yachts, President

That is my thinking, based on facts and reasonable conclusions from those facts. There is lots of "dock talk" about boats that is passed around by boaters, but I find that often those folks are misinformed.

jimh--thanks much for taking the time to give that comprehensive answer.

I still own the Conquest 21 [mentioned in the initial post in this thread] some 15 years later. My comments still stand today.

Regarding the originators inquiry as to any known “design flaws”, not for the Conquest 21. However, there was one known concern with its larger sibling, the Conquest 23.

The larger model was designed for twin 150hp motors. Many were sold with a single 250hp motor. This required the addition of lead ballast in the keel to offset the lighter weight and trim the boat.

If you were purchasing a 20 year old Comquest today, you would likely be considering repower with more modern four strokes. Eliminating the lead ballast might prove difficult.

ASIDE: I went to Miami boat show this weekend and spoke with some of the factory engineers that designed the new 405 and 325 Conquest model. They said I was third person at the show to comment Boston Whaler should reintroduce a 23-foot trailerable Conquest in the lineup. He also remarked they sold more 235 Conquest and 255 Conquest boats to Australia than anywhere else.

ASIDE: regarding the 235 CONQUEST: when I visited Boston Whaler in Edgewater, they had just introduced the 235 CONQUEST. I was able to check out the last pre-production hull that was in the custom shop getting a few tweaks. I thought it was a great boat. The only problem was the price tag. I saw them a year later at dealerships with an $85,000 selling price. I checked used prices a minute ago: cheapest 235 CONQUEST was a 2005 (16-years-old) with a Mercury 225-HP OptiMax (ugh), a trailer, and no hardtop, for $35,000. On the top end of the price range, a 2012 235 CONQUEST recently re-powered with a 2017 VERADO 300 with a hard top, no trailer, is asking $70,000.