Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

OK I understand and I am learning something. ISO standards to my knowledge is a standard that any industry has to meet in manufacturing something, correct? How are these standards set for sailboat building?

Robert, that are 1000 or more pages of text with some really tough formulas and calculations in between. I posted about it on the rudder? or Yard? thread. It is not only about stability but about scantlings too.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Another Bavaria 36 that circumnavigated not once, but twice and one of them by the horn, solo with a Portuguese sailor. This is a MKI of the Bavaria 36 I talked about already and circumnavigated also (solo sailed too) a slightly older model this one (1998). The sailor was Genuino Madruga, a fisherman from Açores. The boat was called Hemingway:

Genuíno Madruga em volta ao Mundo

Good on him as that's quite an achievement but harbor hopping the coast line is not the same as folks that cross the ocean abeam the Capes taking whatever weather comes their way. Going from anchorage to anchorage during good weather windows does not expose you to the type of winds and waves that you are sure to get when you do it as an offshore passage.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Robert, that are 1000 or more pages of text with some really tough formulas and calculations in between. I posted about it on the rudder? or Yard? thread.

Thanks Polux I am more interested in which standard allows builders to use brass sea water fittings and fender washers, surely that is not covered in a 1000 page document.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Mmmm! I was hoping to learn something as obviously I was under the impression that this was part of the CE rating. What standard does the hull and scantlings come under??

ISO - ISO Standards - ICS 47.080: Small craft

12215 construction and materials
12216 windows and portlights etc
12217 stability etc

BR Teddy

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

FINALLY,
On one recent thread some suggested numbers were around $300K for a 50' Bene vs. $1.1M for a comparably sized Hallsberg-Rossy, to cite just one example. Some of this disparity is obviously accounted for in modern, robotic assembly lines, and some of it is in less expensive interiors (which many buyers prefer in any event). But the real nub of this debate in my mind is how much, if any, of the disparity results in flimsier construction and whether it matters to seaworthiness.

You forgot market sizes, production volumes, and the associated purchasing power these bring, as variables also. The bottom line is profit margins, which I don't think you disagree with.

So in your example, there is $800,000 between those two boats. Would you care to guess how much of that proportions out in the different categories you suggest?

I find it very difficult to believe that Bene is saving that much with washers over backing plates (if this is indeed true). I also find it difficult to believe that HR is spending that much more on marginally thicker hulls and other unspecified and undefined "solid" construction methods.

Personally, I don't think much of that price disparity is reflected through "flimsier construction" at all. Think about it - you could hire people and build a boat "your way" for that $800,000 difference alone.

The real reason, IMO, is that HR CANNOT build a 50' boat for $300,000. Even if they used washers and thinner hulls and cheaper interiors. They are not competitive this way - they can't source parts inexpensively, can't automate build processes, can't control material flows, can't sell enough to finance further production, etc.

Price in this argument is mostly a red herring and does not necessarily reflect build quality or suitability.

Mark

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding the STIX, it is not enough to determine the boat class but it is one of the factors (a boat cannot be on a given class if it has a STIX inferior to a given value, the minimum one for that class).

Right, a bit (=much) over simplyfying on my part

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Good on him as that's quite an achievement but harbor hopping the coast line is not the same as folks that cross the ocean abeam the Capes taking whatever weather comes their way. Going from anchorage to anchorage during good weather windows does not expose you to the type of winds and waves that you are sure to get when you do it as an offshore passage.

We went from anchorage to anchorage because he was cruising. That is what people do when making long range cruising. He was specially interested on that part because they speak Spanish a language he speaks too, besides Portuguese.

He was all along the voyage(s) very interested in meeting fishermen like him and exchanging information. Those areas near the horn are known to be very rich in fish, and lot's of fishermen live on those shores. If you prefer the ones that circumnavigate non stop on small inexpensive mass production boats, I will post about that, but that is no cruising on my book, just sailing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Are you an NA, engineer, or builder?

No, which is why I would never post the sorts of "opinions" & make the type of statements you so frequently come up with, based purely on inexperienced, unknowledgeable speculation but proffered as fact.

I've personally not claimed anything other than I accept the CE standards instituted by those professionals. In other words, I trust in their credibility - not my own. If you're one of these pros, I'll listen. If you're not - I probably won't.

Again, I don't mind pushback at all. But as sailorboy said earlier - the dismissal of the CE standard as some nefarious industry tool that manufacturers dreamed up is a bit beyond the pale of "push back"...especially when it comes from people that are none of the above.

We all have to choose whom to believe. I've chosen.

Great choice, Smack, but we've now had a posting suggesting that the CE standard you proposed for a thread theme has nothing to do with backing plates, choice of materials for critical thru-hulls, and other systems. If Teddy is correct, all we know is that "A"-rated boats have been certified to meet a minimum standard for stability, etc. And you wonder why there's so many bad feelings aroused by your threads?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

No.

Okay. Thanks.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Good on him as that's quite an achievement but harbor hopping the coast line is not the same as folks that cross the ocean abeam the Capes taking whatever weather comes their way. Going from anchorage to anchorage during good weather windows does not expose you to the type of winds and waves that you are sure to get when you do it as an offshore passage.

Good lord, are you narrowing your definition down to that which fits only 1-2 people every few years?

You are going to be correct soon!

Mark

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

Great choice, Smack, but we've now had a posting suggesting that the CE standard you proposed for a thread theme has nothing to do with backing plates, choice of materials for critical thru-hulls, and other systems. If Teddy is correct, all we know is that "A"-rated boats have been certified to meet a minimum standard for stability, etc. And you wonder why there's so many bad feelings aroused by your threads?

They still have to meet the ISO standards considering everything..
If someone has a specific question about any of following standards I can check up my copies.
11812
12215_1_2_3_5_6_9
12216

If somebody needs some of the standars as a whole. They have been cheapest at Find Standard - Estonian Centre for Standardisation

BR Teddy

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding the tankage or storage needed for a boat to be sailed offshore or to cross oceans that varies so much with cruisers that it does not make any sense to stabilish limits and each one will find the ones that fit him, the crew and his life style.

I talked here about a family of 4 that circumnavigated and cruised extensively on a J36 or about two friends that cruised extensively and circumnavigated on a mini racer with 22ft. It is clear that for some there is not needed a big tankage or a big load ability to do long range cruising so to each one their own criteria in what regards that makes sense.

I think this is another HUGE issue: Tankage. With newer, much more affordable technologies such as desalination - the need for overall tankage has definitely decreased.

But, as you say, it all depends on the needs of the individual sailor - so there is no way to say X-amount of tankage is the minimum. For example, what is the minimum number of gallons of fuel needed for a circumnavigation? For the Pardeys I believe this was right as 0.

Exactly how big of a fresh-water tank do you need for a Trans-Pacific crossing? Well, are you bathing and washing dishes each day - or are you just drinking?

So the old calculus of "blue water"-appropriate tankage is definitely not a leading indicator.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

Another Bavaria 36 that circumnavigated not once, but twice and one of them by the horn, solo with a Portuguese sailor.

Twice. Rounding the Horn the second time. Win.

Has he checked his brass valves?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Has he checked his brass valves?

His brass balls are blocking them.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

ISO - ISO Standards - ICS 47.080: Small craft

12215 construction and materials
12216 windows and portlights etc
12217 stability etc

BR Teddy

OK that kept me busy but yes I found the info and it is as you say it is. Thanks for that because that was a good learning experience. You were right about the brass fittings which are supposed to have a life of 5 years without breaking down. My surveyor had some very uncomplimentary things to say about brass skin fittings in the newer boats when I had my last survey done and he suggested that many of them were needing replacing so now I am not sure whats going on. I had never seen a brass skin fitting on a boat until I sailed in Europe and I was so schooled in never using brass under seawater that I grew very opinionated about it but now I don't know what to think. I have never owned a boat with brass skin fittings as they have always been bronze. My British surveyor obviously knows a lot about boats and systems and he sure didn't like them so what do others think about using brass knowing that they have a limited lifespan?