1. The monitor for the night vision system was located to the extreme port side of the pilot house, mounted such that it couldn't be seen from the captain's chair. To see the night vision you get up and walk to the port side of the pilot house. Thus, it made no sense to leave it running, because if it were, you wouldn't see it 99% of the time.
   
   
   
2. Where the night vision was located, there wasn't room to sit the little remote control, plus the controller wasn't mounted to anything. Thus, we unplugged it and threw it in a drawer. The few times we left it out, it was tossed to the floor by the first big wave to come along, and in the drawer, it was 'out of site, out of mind'
   
   
   
3. The camera was mounted high on the stack, and had a nice cover to protect it from the elements. To use the camera meant climbing on the roof of the pilot house, and  taking off the cover. The right answer certainly would have been to remove the cover prior to leaving the dock, rather than trying to figure it out in the dark, on the water.
   
   
   
4. This was nine years ago. The technology then wasn't what it is today. The new system I am getting has two completely different systems for night vision, plus 26x daylight zoom. I do not believe my old camera would have been very effective at spotting a dark object in the water, whereas the thermal imaging on the new camera will cause anything floating in the water to light up.
   
   
   
5. This is probably the biggest reason: I simply didn't understand why I would want to run the camera. The Earthrace incident, where they collided with a panga, 50 miles out at sea, was a wake up call. My guess is that my radar would have picked up the panga, but having two systems watching for floating objects certainly adds to safety (actually three, because I tend to run with both radars running).

And, 'how many of the systems I've installed am I second guessing?'

Perhaps later I'll think differently, but for now, other than as I mentioned in the posts on simplifying the electrical system, there's nothing on the boat that I feel was a waste of money.

Unfortunately, money isn't the only concern. Space is also a factor. My lazarette is overloaded, and impossible to move around in, yet I may need access to critical items, like the auto pilot pumps, while under way. The question I've been asking myself is 'What didn't need to be there, and what could have been moved elsewhere?' I mentioned to Nordhavn that there is enough space in each of the forward chain lockers to park a car in (a slight exaggeration, but only slight). If I could have moved half the equipment in the lazarette to one of the chain lockers, I would have done it in a heartbeat. There could be issues with weight that far forward, although I suspect not. On our 62 the batteries and the inverters were in roughly the same spot in the bow. Nordhavn might need to be a little creative in providing access, but I suspect future 68 owners will find great ways to use this space. 

If forced to lose something, I'd probably downsize the water makers. I currently have two 800 gpd units, and they take up a lot of space. I might consider losing two of the inverters. I hadn't realized how large they are, or how much better the sound insulation is on the 68. On our 62, no one could sleep with the generator running, whereas I've been on the 68 plenty of times with the generator running, and you just don't hear it. I wouldn't lose the monitoring system, but I would do things much differently. I had no experience with monitoring systems when I picked out what I wanted on this one. There are sensors that are unnecessary and annoying. There are also sensors that are done incorrectly (for instance, the sensor that tells me if the anchor light is working checks the breaker to see if it is open, rather than measuring current to the bulb. If the bulb burns out, I'm not going to know it). 

Hope this answers your question...

-Ken W