Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[Kenomac]

GarthGregory,

I've sailed on a Beneteaus 461 and an Oyster 53... There's a big difference. Next time you're at a boat show, visit the Oyster models and take a tour... Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. The difference is more than just a few electronic gadgets. And while you're there, check out all the boats from all the manufacturers, cats and monos... Expensive and less expensive, then come back and share your opinion.

BTW: None of the electronics come standard on an Oyster, the customer chooses everything as an option.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

From some of the info I read your 473 was one of the better ones, good boat.

Yes off course, the 471 is a great Beneteau as practically all that have been designed by Finot. Today on the Beneteau line you have designed by Finot the 35, the 38, the 41 and the 45. Beneteau uses on them the same building techniques that had developed along the years and where already used on the 471: the use of an integral "contre moule" bonded to the hull. That was the Beneteau way to avoid a cored hull with a solution that allows also an increase in hull rigidity. Jeanneau uses also a similar system.

I would say that solution regarding cored hulls has advantages and disadvantages.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I've sailed on a Beneteaus 466 and an Oyster 53... There's a big difference. Next time you're at a boat show, visit the Oyster models and take a tour... Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. The difference is more than just a few electronic gadgets. And while you're there, check out all the boats from all the manufacturers, cats and monos... Expensive and less expensive, then come back and share your opinion.

I have been doing that on the last 15 years annually, going to the biggest ones (I am going to Dusseldorf next week) and yes certainly there is normally a difference, even if not in all expensive boats, regarding building and structural integrity.

That difference is not proportional to the difference in price (sometimes can be quite small) and there are exceptions on both sides, I mean very expensive boats with luxurious interiors built by hand using old building techniques and way less expensive boats built with hulls built with better manufacturing techniques and better quality materials. Off course to manage that (price) it would have to be a mass produced boat.

I agree that modern Oysters are very well built. I don't know the Beneteau 466, Are you not talking about a Hunter?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't know the Beneteau 466, Are you not talking about a Hunter?

Sorry, I made the correction on my post. Beneteaus 461 instead of 466. Wasn't wearing my reading glasses.

The Oyster 53 and Beneteaus 461 were both 2002 models.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

I have been doing that on the last 15 years annually, going to the biggest ones (I am going to Dusseldorf next week) and yes certainly there is normally a difference, even if not in all expensive boats, regarding building and structural integrity.

That difference is not proportional to the difference in price (sometimes can be quite small) and there are exceptions on both sides, I mean very expensive boats with luxurious interiors built by hand using old building techniques and way less expensive boats built with hulls built with better manufacturing techniques and better quality materials. Off course to manage that (price) it would have to be a mass produced boat.

I agree that modern Oysters are very well built. I don't know the Beneteau 466, Are you not talking about a Hunter?

Polux -- your opinions about build quality & structural integrity go to the heart of the matter for me, and maybe others. For those that put a premium on these two criteria, it's unfortunate that there seem to be so few options in the new boat market that offer the premium construction & structural integrity of an Oyster, for e.g., but without all the luxuries & huge price differential.

In the automotive world, it seems that mass production techniques have been refined to the point where a Mercedes or BMW may have higher quality than a hand-made Rolls or Bentley costing vastly more. In fact, one might be able to opine that a lower-priced Honda is one of the best cars built in the world these days, quality-wise.

With modern boats, you have demonstrated with all your accounts of world travelers that the build quality on mass-produced boats may well be good enough. And I agree that any differences in build quality & luxury with higher-end boats is not proportional to price. But my question has always been how any differences in build & structural integrity translate at sea, and perhaps to longer-term durability.

It's obviously not simply a question of less-expensive boats not being seaworthy or not strong enough for bluewater sailing, since those questions have long been resolved and are not debatable. It's more about what you are getting for your money in terms of potentially higher quality construction & structural integrity. To analyze & render an opinion on that, you have to leave such subjective factors like luxury & prestige/status aside, and focus more objectively. Having limited expertise on the subject myself, I remain curious what you & others might think.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Sorry, I made the correction on my post. Beneteaus 461 instead of 466. Wasn't wearing my reading glasses.

The Oyster 53 and Beneteaus 461 were both 2002 models.

Yes, I need those too, but the 461 (Farr/Briand) it is an older model (1996). The 471 is the one from 2002 (2000/2005) the differences in design between the two boats are noticeable, being the 471 a more modern boat. The 471 is a far better boat.
461

471

Oyster 53

[carstenb]

Pollux - just as a matter of interest - what is your opinion of my boat?

A 2006 Jeanneau Sun Fast 40.3

SUN FAST 40.3 (JEANNEAU) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


rgds,

carsten

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Polux -- your opinions about build quality & structural integrity go to the heart of the matter for me, and maybe others. For those that put a premium on these two criteria, it's unfortunate that there seem to be so few options in the new boat market that offer the premium construction & structural integrity of an Oyster, for e.g., but without all the luxuries & huge price differential.

In the automotive world, it seems that mass production techniques have been refined to the point where a Mercedes or BMW may have higher quality than a hand-made Rolls or Bentley costing vastly more. In fact, one might be able to opine that a lower-priced Honda is one of the best cars built in the world these days, quality-wise.

With modern boats, you have demonstrated with all your accounts of world travelers that the build quality on mass-produced boats may well be good enough. And I agree that any differences in build quality & luxury with higher-end boats is not proportional to price. But my question has always been how any differences in build & structural integrity translate at sea, and perhaps to longer-term durability.

It's obviously not simply a question of less-expensive boats not being seaworthy or not strong enough for bluewater sailing, since those questions have long been resolved and are not debatable. It's more about what you are getting for your money in terms of potentially higher quality construction & structural integrity. To analyze & render an opinion on that, you have to leave such subjective factors like luxury & prestige/status aside, and focus more objectively. Having limited expertise on the subject myself, I remain curious what you & others might think.

Yes you are right higher building specs on boats to be associated most of the time with luxury interiors and a considerable part of the money goes to the luxury interiors, but not on all the brands. Take for instance the Allures 45 that even having a good interior it is not a luxury boat, it is very well built as solid or more than an Oyster and has a relatively low price for what is offered.

Regarding what you get for the money obviously you get a lot more from a mass production boat. Regarding having on the market medium priced boats with high spec building it is not only the Allures but for instance Salona or Dehler that offer a very good quality as standard and high speck quality as an option. You have also Azuree or Grand Soleil as brands that offer great quality on mass production boats at a medium price. I am certainly forgetting others.

I guess that regarding US many are not imported others are imported in smaller numbers and importation makes them even more expensive regarding the mass production boats that are made on the US, namely Beneteau or Jeanneau. On the US you have also Catalina that I only know from design viewpoint (that I don't like) but that in what regards built quality I have heard many saying that offer a good quality.

In fact there is a choice, even in what regards better building quality at medium prices regarding mass production boats but that choice is much bigger in Europe. For ones interested on a new boat with medium price and higher quality building I would recommend a visit to Dusseldorf where many are exposed and to buy directly in Europe, I mean if Catalina is not the boat they would like to own. It seems Dehler and Salona are now represented on US but the importation and travel for the US will make them considerable more expensive than in Europe, I don't know how much more.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Pollux - just as a matter of interest - what is your opinion of my boat?

A 2006 Jeanneau Sun Fast 40.3

SUN FAST 40.3 (JEANNEAU) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


rgds,

carsten

Humm, I hope you guys don't start to ask me my opinion regarding your own sailboats. Many times one likes so much his sailboat that consider it the best sailboat on the planet, at least for the price. So I don't want to do this and I would not make it anymore. I will open an exception to Carsten.

The Sun fast 40.3 has the same hull as the Sun Odissey 40.3, a 2004 design by Daniel Andrieu. Today Jeanneau still offer a performance version for their SO that are called now-more Sun Fast. The actual performance version goes much shorter than what has made on the Sun Fast, having them 6 winches instead of the 4 standard on the SO (probably bigger too), a traveler for the main on the back of the boat, a different mast with a fractional rig and an adjustable backstay, different keels (more draft) and a deeper rudder.

The boat was not much more powerful than the standard SO (probably a bit) and probably the boat structure was reinforced to take the extra stress. The boat carried about more 6m2 of sail.





The boat design is contemporary, regarding 2004 and the boat without being comparable in speed or stability with other performance cruisers of that era (for instance the Dehler 39) represented a good improvement over the Sun Odyssey 40.3 specially in what regards to have a boat that could have the sails fine tuned and one could enjoy the pleasure of taking from the boat all performance it could offer. For many, and certainly for Sun Fast owners, much of the pleasure of sailing is about that: Having the boat correctly tuned and enjoy doing it. For the ones that like performance cruisers a boat that could not be perfectly tuned would be a boring boat to sail: The definition of a performance cruiser is about that, a boat that can be finely tuned and certainly the Sun Fast 40.3 can.

Today Jeanneau opted for another approach and today's Sun Fast, also designed by Daniel Andrieu, are not bettered SO but performance cruisers that are pratically race boats, the 3200 and the 3600. I say race boats because their interior is very spartan and not really adapted for cruising. After the 3200 me and many were hoping Jeanneau would make a 40ft Sun fast, kind of the 3200 but with better cruising amenities but what comes out was a bigger 3200, the 3600.

It was said that they were not allowed due to be direct competition with First line, the sport performance boats of the same group, but now that the First are being taken out of the market without being replaced the question remains: Will be the future fast performance cruisers of the group be First or Sun Fast? Or will they just finish with the line of performance cruisers, maintaining only race boats like the Figaro (a new one coming?) and the Sun Fast 3200 and 3600?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding this I do not agree or at least at the time, before the RCD was implemented, there was a lot of talk regarding the Fastnet disaster and the work groups (NA and NE) working to establish acceptable minimum safety stability requirements for the RCD talked many times about the need of those requirements to prevent another disaster.

"On the aftermath of the studies about the Fastnet disaster CRUISING CLUB OF AMERICA come with that come with the capsizing screen ratio and EC started the studies to implement minimum stability requirements, later known as the RCD.

In the aftermath of the race and the analysis published by John Rousmaniere in his book Fastnet Force 10, many leading designers and sailors began to question the direction of design trends....In the spring of 1980, the Cruising Club of America (CCA), which was preparing to run its biennial Newport-Bermuda Race took a long hard look at the Fastnet race and began to study what could be done to prevent such a disaster from reoccurring....The CCA committee that compiled the five-year Fastnet report came up with a simple formula to determine the stability of any yacht of a fairly standard type and of a size suitable for offshore sailing.
In the EU, the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) was introduced to ensure manufacturers comply with basic stability requirements when advertising boats as being suitable for offshore sailing conditions."

Learning the lessons: 1979 Fastnet race - boats.com UK

I remember also that the RCD was discussed at the Nautical press at the time and that implication was made. Unfortunately those magazines are for long on the garbage and you have to pay to read the articles:

"Are you familiar with the Recreational Craft Directive? here's everything you need to know ... Fastnet 79 - the disaster that changed sailing "

Copyshop Cart

There was also an interesting article on line by Van Oossanen, one of the Dutch Na that composed the Dutch work group (for establish the minimum stability requirements for the RCD). It used to be on line and probably I have it somewhere but I cannot download it anymore:"Investigation of minimum stability requirements for ballasted monohull sailing craft"

On it it was also made a clear reference of the Fastnet disaster as a motivation for the RCD.

Regarding the RCD in Generic terms I agree with what you say about it and I believe a good description is this one given by Richard Blundel and Michael Thatcher:

"the most important institutional change to affect the yacht industry was the introduction of the European Union’s Recreational Craft Directive 6 94/25 (RCD). Since June 1998, almost all new recreational craft of between 2.5 metres and 24 metres in length have been required to comply with the requirements of the RCD; designs are classified by specialist companies .. The RCD replaced the various national codes that had been in operation around Europe. It established a number of safety requirements and minimum specifications in areas such as structural strength, stability and buoyancy, under specified classifications up to ‘A’ (Ocean). Though it did not come into force until 1998, the RCD was in effective use for several years prior to becoming legally binding."

Regarding the RCD it should not be seen as a closed document since they have a technical team that is revising it each year (taking into account the needs and boat accidents) and complementing the safety standards with more detailed or higher specs when needed.

The last implementation with more demanding standards was about rudders, the next one will be probably about keels and there is talk about the creation of another class, maintaining the Class A as it is but creating a new one regarding boats with superior stability characteristics, that will include some that are on class A now and exclude others. The objective is not preventing class A boats to sail offshore but to give to customers a more detailed information about stability boat characteristics.

The primary purpose of the RCD. Was not to introduce stability and other issues, in fact the RCD cabe into force with actually virtually no standards to back it up.

You are also mixing up ISO specifications and the RCD. ISO specs are gradually becoming embedded into the RCD but as yet they are not encompassing.

The original reason for the RCD was to harmonise boat standards so that boats could not be rejected by national authorities.

You are conveniently ignoring all the main aspects of the RCD process in effect documented quality systems and manufacturing processes.

Again polux , a manufacturer can just seek cat D . And the user can cross oceans.

The RCD did not set out to be a legal ABYC. , even if it's proceeding in that way.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The primary purpose of the RCD. Was not to introduce stability and other issues, in fact the RCD cabe into force with actually virtually no standards to back it up.

You are also mixing up ISO specifications and the RCD. ISO specs are gradually becoming embedded into the RCD but as yet they are not encompassing.

The original reason for the RCD was to harmonise boat standards so that boats could not be rejected by national authorities.

You are conveniently ignoring all the main aspects of the RCD process in effect documented quality systems and manufacturing processes.

Again polux , a manufacturer can just seek cat D . And the user can cross oceans.

The RCD did not set out to be a legal ABYC. , even if it's proceeding in that way.

...

Some confusion there. This is not my opinion but the view of two academics on a study about the boat recreational market.

"the most important institutional change to affect the yacht industry was the introduction of the European Union’s Recreational Craft Directive 6 94/25 (RCD). Since June 1998, almost all new recreational craft of between 2.5 metres and 24 metres in length have been required to comply with the requirements of the RCD; designs are classified by specialist companies .. The RCD replaced the various national codes that had been in operation around Europe. It established a number of safety requirements and minimum specifications in areas such as structural strength, stability and buoyancy, under specified classifications up to ‘A’ (Ocean). Though it did not come into force until 1998, the RCD was in effective use for several years prior to becoming legally binding."

But this is more than a opinion but a fact that corresponds to the reality and can be confirmed in many sources, official or not:

"Virtually all recreational craft built since 16 June 1998 and intended for sport and leisure use, may only be placed on the EEA market or put into service within the EEA if they meet the essential safety requirements set out in the Recreational Craft Directive – 2003/44/EC."

http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollection...ce%20Guide.pdf

"Recreational craft marketed in the EU must comply with harmonized technical safety and environmental requirements and meet a number of administrative obligations defined by Directive 94/25/EC, as amended in 2003.... Preserving the environment, ensuring consumer protection and improving the European free market are among the key goals of the EU. In an effort to contribute to these objectives, a number of safety and environmental requirements have been established for recreational craft.

The key element of European legislation on recreational craft is Directive 94/25/EC, which classifies recreational craft and lays down safety requirements for their design and construction,....."

What is the Recreational Craft Directive?

So, as you can see from the beginning it was about consumer protection and safety.

Regarding ISO I don't understand what you mean. ISO European standards have not to do with boats. It is the technical RCD group that makes the standards that later are published as ISO regarding different scantlings and safety/stability/pollution requirements the boats have to comply with.

"An ISO standard is developed by a panel of experts, within a technical committee. Once the need for a standard has been established, these experts meet to discuss and negotiate a draft standard. As soon as a draft has been developed it is shared with ISO’s members who are asked to comment and vote on it. If a consensus is reached the draft becomes an ISO standard, if not it goes back to the technical committee for further edits."
ISO Standards - ISO

In what concerns this "a manufacturer can just seek cat D . And the user can cross oceans" it depends on the countries. In UK yes, in many not since you have to have the boat register on a given category, that implies a specif grade of security aboard in conformity with the category and if that category is with no limitations, being the boat classified as Class A is a requirement.

besides even in UK if you want to insure the boat, at least in what regards hull insurance (the boat insured against "all" risks) they are going to limit the geographical area where the boat is insured and I bet they will refuse to insure it for crossing an Ocean a boat that is only certified in class D, or even C or B

[goboatingnow]

Polux,

The intent of the RCD was to both harmonise national standards and an attempt over time to introduce minimum construction standard.s. But while RCD technical committees may may been influenced by various yachting tradegies that was not the " political " reason for bringing in the RCD. The RCD was a result of pressure from primarily the uk marine industry in response to national approvals in other European countries.

Yes it it broadened , like many a EU process.

In the early years even though the RCD was law, there was virtually no ISO specifications you can read through the entirety of directive 94/25/EC and there is no mention of ISO standards.

Here's what is said on stability for example

" The craft shall have sufficient stability and freeboard considering its design category according to section 1 and the manufacturer's maximum recommended load according to section 3.6."

There is no reference to any specific standards, merely that the notified body has to determine if this clause has been adequately met by builder. , ISO standards are merely " one" way of demonstrating that.

Just to be sure this isn't been missed ISO standard are essentially voluntary and do not have the force of law, they are just like ABYC in that regard.

Take for example the seacock issue, a manufacturer has to show to the notified body that it's confirms to the requirements under 94/25/EU , He could use the ISO standard. , alternatively he could supply his own data shoeing that no degradation has be occurring etc. The notified body is the arbiter of what is acceptable.

Yes it's true that in Europe the ISO standards ( there's are 60'of them and they are significantly more detailed and worked out then ABYC ) are being used more and more as a method of demonstrating compliance but it's not the only way.

Many industry " experts " "sold" the RCD to the public , as bring about safety and standard. , nothing could be further from the truth. The RCD is a mechanism for the harmonisation of trade, not safety. ( read intro to the directive)

There is no donut that the ISO standards are influenced by real life yachting and boating issues. Bit the ISO standards do NOT define the RCD., they are merely one way of being in compliance. It's worth pointing out there are far more ISO standards then RCD sections.

It has been repeatedly pointed put that RCD category is NO. determinant of sea going ability. Category A is very simple for any competent builder to pass..
Other then Portugal, who in my opinion, don't know what they are doing, I'm nt aware of any EU country that restricts cruising on RCD categories. And it would be meaningless to do so.

Like many things in the EU, we had an essentially trade agreement foisted on the boating public , passed off as a safety standard. Maybe in time it will be there, today boats built under 94/25/EU , could just be marginally safe for their intended use.

Dave





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Polux,

The intent of the RCD was to both harmonise national standards and an attempt over time to introduce minimum construction standard.s. But while RCD technical committees may may been influenced by various yachting tradegies that was not the " political " reason for bringing in the RCD. The RCD was a result of pressure from primarily the uk marine industry in response to national approvals in other European countries.
...
In the early years even though the RCD was law, there was virtually no ISO specifications you can read through the entirety of directive 94/25/EC and there is no mention of ISO standards.

Here's what is said on stability for example

" The craft shall have sufficient stability and freeboard considering its design category according to section 1 and the manufacturer's maximum recommended load according to section 3.6."

There is no reference to any specific standards, merely that the notified body has to determine if this clause has been adequately met by builder. , ISO standards are merely " one" way of demonstrating that.

Just to be sure this isn't been missed ISO standard are essentially voluntary and do not have the force of law, they are just like ABYC in that regard.
....
Many industry " experts " "sold" the RCD to the public , as bring about safety and standard. , nothing could be further from the truth. The RCD is a mechanism for the harmonisation of trade, not safety. ( read intro to the directive)

There is no donut that the ISO standards are influenced by real life yachting and boating issues. Bit the ISO standards do NOT define the RCD., they are merely one way of being in compliance. It's worth pointing out there are far more ISO standards then RCD sections.
...
Dave

Here you have an example as ISO are used on the RCD, regarding a recent safety modification:

2.3 Protection from falling overboard and means of reboarding
Depending on the design category, craft shall be designed to minimise the risks of falling overboard and to facilitate reboarding.
The basic principle indicating that essential requirements shall be complied with, “in so far as they apply” to the craft to be certified, shall be taken into account. Therefore, as far as this essential requirement is concerned, the reduction of the possibility of falling overboard and the provision of “means of reboarding” should be considered for all craft to be certified.
Relevant Harmonised Standard: EN ISO 15085:2003: Small craft – Man-overboard prevention and recovery (ISO 15085:2003)

and that means that they should comply with the refereed ISO. Yes they can be better than that but not inferior to ISO.

From the beginning the articles of the RCD defined requirements like: "The craft shall have sufficient stability and freeboard considering its design category according to section 1 and the manufacturer's maximum recommended load according to section 3.6." and the compliance requirements were defined on different Annexes of the RCD. The Annexes always existed even if now they are much more. The last one was about rudders and the compliance is mandatory, as in all the others. Annexes are technical documents have nothing to do with ISO and their volume is huge, much bigger then the RCD itself. Recently ISO standards passed also to be used as away to determine minimum acceptable standards.

You want to make believe that the RCD and class A is minimum in what regards safety requirements but the truth is that many boats from the 80's would not be able to pass them. Yes most cruisers over 33ft are able to pass today Class A requirements but that's because they are well designed and designed to meet those requirements. Without them many of those boats would not be as seaworthy as they are.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

....
It has been repeatedly pointed put that RCD category is NO. determinant of sea going ability. Category A is very simple for any competent builder to pass..
Other then Portugal, who in my opinion, don't know what they are doing, I'm nt aware of any EU country that restricts cruising on RCD categories. And it would be meaningless to do so.
...

The competency is not from the builder but from the NA and it is extremely difficult to approve a boat with less than 30ft.

As you can see, regarding the requirement of a class A boat for bluewater sailing in Spain it is the same as Portugal.
http://cinco-oceanos.com/ayudas/Equi...bligatorio.pdf
Out of 60nm from the coast only class A sailboats are allowed. I believe that in Italy it is the same.

You guys sometimes are funny: You say that the requirements of ClassA are too low to allow bluewater sailing but then you say that all boast should be allowed to go anywhere. No problem, they have an Epirb and the ones that pay taxes will pay for their rescues

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

...

It has been repeatedly pointed put that RCD category is NO. determinant of sea going ability. Category A is very simple for any competent builder to pass..
Other then Portugal, who in my opinion, don't know what they are doing, I'm nt aware of any EU country that restricts cruising on RCD categories. And it would be meaningless to do so.
...

I have not time or the desire to look at the 28 countries that are members of EC where only A class boats are allowed to go bluewater but I remember Sven had problems with that, so you can count one more, Sweden.

"I have also been talking in Norrköping, the site of The Swedish Transport Agency. .. the EU:s RCD the recreational craft directive. The RCD forbids Small Ocean going boats. When I exhibited my boat in Stockholm I got a note stating that I was forbidden to sell it or use it."

October « 2013 « Present Project

Of course Sven is not right, RCD does not forbid, it is to each country to take that decision on their national laws regarding what type of boats they allow or not to be used offshore. Some allow everything.