Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[smackdaddy]

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.

If this is really your definition of "blue water cruising" - you need a better boat yourself. You might ask Evans if he wants to sell.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

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

Thank you. I've given that one up as a lost cause.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by colemj

His brass balls are blocking them.

Mark

Heh-heh.

Like.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

No Mark I am not. I had some very good visits with sailors that made the same trip and were trying to encourage me to visit the area. It was their opinion that coastal sailing around the horn was not a big deal as there were many areas to hold up and wait out a blow certainly nothing like doing it on the open ocean. This fellow did a piss load of sailing and you can't take that away from him but you can not compare this trip to someone who does it in the open ocean. No different than coming down the Wa Or coast and harbor hopping from village to village compared to the sailors that head out 150 miles and sail directly to Southern California. They all get where they are going but in a different way.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

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?

Are you now starting to see why I tend to believe the pros?

Now - back to the subject at hand...

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

If this is really your definition of "blue water cruising" - you need a better boat yourself. You might ask Evans if he wants to sell.

I think Evans already has an offer on his boat. The two sailors I visited that made the same trip were older boats from the 80's, nothing too special, certainly not in the league of Evans boat. I'll bet you could make the same trip fairly easy in your older Hunter(I'm not kidding you)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Okay. Thanks.

Are you? Oh sorry, the answer is all too obvious.

What you have managed to distort is the point that you have no idea -- nor do I -- of the qualifications of those who criticize the CE ratings. Trying to attack, with zero information, the qualifications of the dissenters does nothing to advance the debate over whether those standards are appropriate on their own merit.

Regardless, this is not about debating the standard, but rather using it as a measuring stick to compare different types of boats. You chose it, after all. I know, trying to raise the "debate" beyond elementary school level is hard work, but maybe even you can do it.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Are you now starting to see why I tend to believe the pros?

Now - back to the subject at hand...

So my bet is that your old Hunter has bronze fittings, would you prefer brass??

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

Sorry for jumping in on an established debate, but I wanted to comment on this point.

It's very difficult to be a successful production boatbuilder in any part of the market these days, and as with other industries from homebuilding to watchmaking the most likely way to survive is by either choosing low price mass proiduction where cost reduction is paramount or small volume production where luxury/performance and/or cachet allow you to charge a premium price. If you are at the high volume production end and can't be competitive on price you won't last long. On the other hand, if you are at the top end where you do charge that premium and can't deliver on the luxury/performance and /or cachet bit you will also not survive for long, and to that end I believe the folks who succeed in that endeavour such as HR and Oyster, at least for the most part, do.

Both types of producer could obviously change their strategy and try to switch markets, but for Hunter/Bavaria it would be difficult to change the image and cachet bit, and HR or Baltic would have to radically invest and change their plant and manufacturing processes. It's practically impossible to survice in the middle ground in this industry and not much easier at the extremes, and I suspect most of the guys at the higher end not delivering a higher quality or marketable product have been weeded out by now, with most who are still struggling.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Are you now starting to see why I tend to believe the pros?

So which pros told you it's OK to use fender washers instead of backing plates for deck cleats?

[smackdaddy]

Definitely not a "production boat" - but I love these kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LqVWC_bY-w

What an adventure.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Brob2

Sorry for jumping in on an established debate, but I wanted to comment on this point.

It's very difficult to be a successful production boatbuilder in any part of the market these days, and as with other industries from homebuilding to watchmaking the most likely way to survive is by either choosing low price mass proiduction where cost reduction is paramount or small volume production where luxury/performance and/or cachet allow you to charge a premium price. If you are at the high volume production end and can't be competitive on price you won't last long. On the other hand, if you are at the top end where you do charge that premium and can't deliver on the luxury/performance and /or cachet bit you will also not survive for long, and to that end I believe the folks who succeed in that endeavour such as HR and Oyster, at least for the most part, do.

Both types of producer could obviously change their strategy and try to switch markets, but for Hunter/Bavaria it would be difficult to change the image and cachet bit, and HR or Baltic would have to radically invest and change their plant and manufacturing processes. It's practically impossible to survice in the middle ground in this industry and not much easier at the extremes, and I suspect most of the guys at the higher end not delivering a higher quality or marketable product have been weeded out by now, with most who are still struggling.

I think you're exactly right. And to be clear, I certainly have nothing against the "top-end" boats. They are obviously great boats. My main point with this thread is that the "low-end" boats are perfectly suited to doing the same things as those "top-end" boats. So more people should get out there and enjoy them.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would agree it is "a" standard, but I'm honestly not sure after reading the lengthy explanations by Polux & others from other threads that it's "the" standard you are trying to represent, namely one geared for consumers to help them properly distinguish between different types of boats. My admittedly vague impression was that it was developed by the mfgs. & for the mfgs. that has been refined & enforced by European regulators. (For example in 2009 when they required certain mfgs. to beef up build quality with heavier scantlings, etc.). What I found somewhat confusing, again from a consumer point of view, is that the same boat may or may not get the same offshore rating based solely on account of the amount of its tankage. This is obviously an important criteria related to self-sufficiency on longer voyages, but it has nothing to do with whether the boat is built to withstand heavier seas.

Or, heavier DOCKS, perhaps?

:-))





This Euro "Boat of the Year" is built to the Class A Ocean "standard"...

Re the suitability of particular boats for venturing offshore, I prefer to be informed by what my own Lyin' Eyes & Ears tell me... :-) Anyone who witnessed this debacle in Charleston 2 winters ago, would probably have to question how comprehensive such a "Standard" is, that permits the placement of large picture windows in the topsides of such a boat, at the point of maximum beam, and within such close proximity of the shrouds/chainplates... Above the din of the wind and wave action, I could clearly hear some VERY disconcerting 'cracking' noises from where I stood...

:-))

In my view, these discussions invariably miss the point of Bluewater Suitability when digressing towards the citation of particular BRANDS, or STANDARDS... Probably just me, but what I think defines offshore seaworthiness are CHARACTERISTICS, in both design, and construction...

I always recommend this volume to anyone mulling over their selection of a boat for "Bluewater Sailing"... Sure, it's now dated in certain respects, but I still think it represents a great starting point... Really a pity it doesn't enjoy a wider audience, today...


Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of the Offshore Yachts (A Nautical quarterly book): John Rousmaniere: 9780393033113: Amazon.com: Books

[smackdaddy]

Jon - every time you post that dock pic (and antique book) I get queasy. Heh-heh.

I can assure you though, I would have no interest in sailing the boat that is specifically designed and built for the situation in that photo.

What "Standard" says it's a good idea to park any boat there in those conditions?

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Exile

So which pros told you it's OK to use fender washers instead of backing plates for deck cleats?

Well, the washers must have been a step up from the deck screws.