Oyster Problems?

[TeddyDiver]

The relative price of the hull (including proper grid) lies in a ballpark of 20% of the total price of a sailboat. So to save 1 to 2% of the total coasts of a boat in a such essential structure is just criminal IMO.
Much of this is to blame how the boating media introduces the new designs for the public. Most of the 'testing' is concentrated on the performance, polars, looks and general arragements, not to the structure. Even then if there by some reason happens to be a picture of keel bolts as an example there's no word of the inaquate backing plates thou most boat journalists dont have any expertise in boat engineering anyways. All this leads to general ignorance which we see around.
I've been in boating allmost 50yrs now, and seen such trends of neglect of the basic things before and allways it's gone better after crisis of some sort with bankcrupties and betrayed customer with excuse of a boat.

BR Teddy

[jmaja]

So if we look at the boats in test in Yacht 16/2015

Bavaria 33 Cruiser, LOA 9.75, LWL 8.85, Beam 3.42, Displ 5.2 t, Ballast 1.3 t, price 80 800 €
Delphia 34 LOA 9.95, LWL 9.14, Beam 3.47, Displ 5.0 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 90 630 €
Dufour 350, LOA 9.98, LWL 9.00, Beam 3.54, Displ 5.7 t, Ballast 1.6 t, price 105 770 €
HR 310, LOA 9.42, LWL 8.80, Beam 3.18, Displ 4.4 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 166 120 €
Sun Oddyssey 349, LOA 9.97, LWL 9.40, Beam 3.44, Displ 5.3 t, Ballast 1.6 t, 94 430 €

So which one of those has been built lightly as in having used smaller amount of FRP? It's not totally fair yet, since HR is not built even close to specs, since in another test 310 was found to actually weigh 5296 kg while Bavaria 32 Cruiser (same specs as 33) was 5237 kg, thus spot on. Still with more ballast HR has less weight in other parts. One would think that HR has more weight in the interior so maybe the hull is much lighter?

All of those use the same engines (VP or Yanmar ~20 HP), probably not much difference in the rig either. HR has tiller steering while all the others have a more expensive wheel or double wheels.

So where does the double price of HR come from? How big portion of the cost is the hull for the cheaper ones and for HR?

Is HR the only safe boat? Based on what?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by minaret

Close up with finger for scale.

That's just crazy. That would surely shatter on impact even at 0.5 knots.

And I guess no water-tight bulkhead behind, either?

On the other hand, there are thousands of these boats sailing around, and you don't hear about dozens of sinkings.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mitiempo

I disagree with that, as would many.

Any type of keel attachment - bolted or encapsulated - can be engineered and built either well or badly as in the case of the Oyster. There are many boats with bolted on keels that have survived for decades without any issues.

Indeed. 99% of sailing yachts today have bolted on keels. It's a pure question of engineering. Encapsulated keels are not inherently stronger, and indeed it was not the bolted interface which failed on Polina Star.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmaja

So if we look at the boats in test in Yacht 16/2015

Bavaria 33 Cruiser, LOA 9.75, LWL 8.85, Beam 3.42, Displ 5.2 t, Ballast 1.3 t, price 80 800 €
Delphia 34 LOA 9.95, LWL 9.14, Beam 3.47, Displ 5.0 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 90 630 €
Dufour 350, LOA 9.98, LWL 9.00, Beam 3.54, Displ 5.7 t, Ballast 1.6 t, price 105 770 €
HR 310, LOA 9.42, LWL 8.80, Beam 3.18, Displ 4.4 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 166 120 €
Sun Oddyssey 349, LOA 9.97, LWL 9.40, Beam 3.44, Displ 5.3 t, Ballast 1.6 t, 94 430 €

So which one of those has been built lightly as in having used smaller amount of FRP? It's not totally fair yet, since HR is not built even close to specs, since in another test 310 was found to actually weigh 5296 kg while Bavaria 32 Cruiser (same specs as 33) was 5237 kg, thus spot on. Still with more ballast HR has less weight in other parts. One would think that HR has more weight in the interior so maybe the hull is much lighter?

All of those use the same engines (VP or Yanmar ~20 HP), probably not much difference in the rig either. HR has tiller steering while all the others have a more expensive wheel or double wheels.

So where does the double price of HR come from? How big portion of the cost is the hull for the cheaper ones and for HR?

Is HR the only safe boat? Based on what?

Ironically, HR may be that one boat which is not stronger or safer in proportion to the difference in cost. HR are the leaders among high end boat builders in adopting mass production techniques like grids and liners. And they have had some hull integrity problems, badly handled.

The difference in cost between mass produced and high end boats is by no means all in the hull. Most of the difference is probably, banally, in the joinery. HR seem to be pushing the envelope, trying to sell Beneteaus with high end fitouts at Oyster prices. I'm exaggerating, but that seems to be the direction, and it's alarming for those like me who love HR's.

The HR 64 is that series made boat which is closest to what I want in my next boat.

[jmaja]

So let's add Contessa 32: LOA 9.75, LWL 7.32, Beam 2.90, Displ 4.3 t, Ballast 2 t, price ~300 000 € (189 000 £ + VAT). That must be very heavily built? Well it's a smaller boat, but only 2.3 t for everything but the ballast doesn't sound much compared to 3.3 - 4.1 t of the modern boats I listed earlier. 300 000 €??? Where does that come from? How much is the cost of the hull?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by minaret

Pocket tape:

Thank you Minaret,, just Wow, the bow plate is awesome...

[Sandero]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The relative price of the hull (including proper grid) lies in a ballpark of 20% of the total price of a sailboat. So to save 1 to 2% of the total coasts of a boat in a such essential structure is just criminal IMO.
Much of this is to blame how the boating media introduces the new designs for the public. Most of the 'testing' is concentrated on the performance, polars, looks and general arragements, not to the structure. Even then if there by some reason happens to be a picture of keel bolts as an example there's no word of the inaquate backing plates thou most boat journalists dont have any expertise in boat engineering anyways. All this leads to general ignorance which we see around.
I've been in boating allmost 50yrs now, and seen such trends of neglect of the basic things before and allways it's gone better after crisis of some sort with bankcrupties and betrayed customer with excuse of a boat.

BR Teddy

Teddy,
I am not in the market for a new boat and don't follow the press about the new yachts etc. I see them moored or underway and haven't a clue about how they are put together. I assumed that the builds have been getting better.... even stronger with more high strength high tech materials and construction techniques. It appears that these assumptions are unfounded. The PR probably is probably about visual design, accommodation plans, and sailing performance for the very reason that seems to be at the heart of this problem. Structure is poorly understood by the consumer and probably not much better by the manufacturer and not as high a concern as it should be. Structure is what ensures survivability of the yacht in more extreme conditions. And these conditions are rarely encountered by the VAST majority of yachts on the water... without destruction testing... flaws will easily pass unnoticed... because the "tests" are about sailing performance.

Your make excellent points in this post.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by jmaja

So if we look at the boats in test in Yacht 16/2015

Bavaria 33 Cruiser, LOA 9.75, LWL 8.85, Beam 3.42, Displ 5.2 t, Ballast 1.3 t, price 80 800 €
Delphia 34 LOA 9.95, LWL 9.14, Beam 3.47, Displ 5.0 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 90 630 €
Dufour 350, LOA 9.98, LWL 9.00, Beam 3.54, Displ 5.7 t, Ballast 1.6 t, price 105 770 €
HR 310, LOA 9.42, LWL 8.80, Beam 3.18, Displ 4.4 t, Ballast 1.7 t, price 166 120 €
Sun Oddyssey 349, LOA 9.97, LWL 9.40, Beam 3.44, Displ 5.3 t, Ballast 1.6 t, 94 430 €

So which one of those has been built lightly as in having used smaller amount of FRP? It's not totally fair yet, since HR is not built even close to specs, since in another test 310 was found to actually weigh 5296 kg while Bavaria 32 Cruiser (same specs as 33) was 5237 kg, thus spot on. Still with more ballast HR has less weight in other parts. One would think that HR has more weight in the interior so maybe the hull is much lighter?

All of those use the same engines (VP or Yanmar ~20 HP), probably not much difference in the rig either. HR has tiller steering while all the others have a more expensive wheel or double wheels.

So where does the double price of HR come from? How big portion of the cost is the hull for the cheaper ones and for HR?

Is HR the only safe boat? Based on what?

To found a delaminated HR in the net or two dont make Hr prone to this problems, for instance Hr glass the deck to hull joint from inside, something the others dont, Amel and few others yes, could be the diference ,,, and things like proper backing plates, teak decks, and dozens and dozens of details ....

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by jmaja

So let's add Contessa 32: LOA 9.75, LWL 7.32, Beam 2.90, Displ 4.3 t, Ballast 2 t, price ~300 000 € (189 000 £ + VAT). That must be very heavily built? Well it's a smaller boat, but only 2.3 t for everything but the ballast doesn't sound much compared to 3.3 - 4.1 t of the modern boats I listed earlier. 300 000 €??? Where does that come from? How much is the cost of the hull?

Well kind of ask yourself how its posible those prices in a 65 S&S Swan 20 years old, youy pay for a extraodinary design , construction, quality.... some things in life need to keep that hig value to be appreciated...

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by jmaja

So which one of those has been built lightly as in having used smaller amount of FRP? It's not totally fair yet, since HR is not built even close to specs, since in another test 310 was found to actually weigh 5296 kg while Bavaria 32 Cruiser (same specs as 33) was 5237 kg, thus spot on. Still with more ballast HR has less weight in other parts. One would think that HR has more weight in the interior so maybe the hull is much lighter?

Speaking about the amount of GRP is irrelevant. What counts is what kind of glass is used how it's laminated and how the additional structural parts dimensioned etc. Nor does the weight tell you anything as long as you have no knowledge of what it consists of.

[Sandero]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Speaking about the amount of GRP is irrelevant. What counts is what kind of glass is used how it's laminated and how the additional structural parts dimensioned etc. Nor does the weight tell you anything as long as you have no knowledge of what it consists of.

and how the parts are joined into a composite STRUCTURE.. ALL stresses ultimately must "pass thru" nodes, joints and "interfaces" between elements.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by neilpride

To found a delaminated HR in the net or two dont make Hr prone to this problems.

But founding one or two Beneteaus loosing keel in the net does make them prone to this problem although that's porpotionally much fewer examples? Well that was not the point and I did not say HR is not safe. The point was to compare weights of the similar size boats of different price classes build from about the same materials (no epoxy, carbon etc.). That comparison doesn't support the claim that modern cheap production boats are built with less material than more expensive ones or older ones in order to save costs. Less material would lead to smaller displacement, which is not the case. There were much lighter boats in the 80's like Selection 37 (3.4 t) or X-99 (3 t), both build without high tech materials. And even those have been sailing 30 years quite OK. Yes part of the low weight comes from less interior, but still the hulls are much lighter. So where are they (Oyster 825 and the cheap production boats) putting that weight, if you think that hull and keel structure are too lightly built? What is done differently with HR and Contessa to reach lighter weight from similar materials, if you think they have a much stronger structure? I would undertand, if they used more sandwhich (hull, bulkheads) or stronger materials (epoxy, carbon) like Dehler, X, Arcona etc. do to reach better strength to weight ratio.

[Sandero]

Considering how many hulls are manaufactured.. even one or two dropped keels seems way too high a percentage. No?

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Speaking about the amount of GRP is irrelevant. What counts is what kind of glass is used how it's laminated and how the additional structural parts dimensioned etc. Nor does the weight tell you anything as long as you have no knowledge of what it consists of.

My "study" was targetted to those who claimed that production boats are weak, because they save in the amount of GRP material used. There is no real difference in the way say HR and Bavaria are laminated, at least not in the favour of HR, which uses a lot of chopped, ortho and spray lay-up (at least a few years ago). It's quite hard to know what the weight consists of in detail. You know the ballast. There aren't going to be a big difference in the weight of the engine and the rig, which total to about 300 kg in that size. The rest is more difficult, but since HR and Contessa use heavy wood interior it is unlikely to be lighter than the production builts. They probably also use heavier steel tanks vs. plastic for production boats. So I really don't see how production boats wouldn't use (clearly) more GRP than HR and Contessa. But how much of that GRP is in hull and keel structures?