Rudder Failures

[neilpride]

Anyone remember a Brand new J122 aground in a sandbank in Kentish beach without keel? I think is a great boat, fast, fun, sporty, but i dont want to have a grounding in one.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

As for the bolded part. I think you nailed that one on the head.

As for me touting the higher quality of "new construction processes, materials, or designs" - I'm not really doing that per se. What I'm doing is looking into claims from those who say that these things are "dangerous" or "not suited for bluewater cruising" or "not proper construction" or whatever.

When people make categorical statements like that - statements that clearly fly in the face of what the large majority of boat builders are actually doing - I challenge them - AND always try to provide clear evidence of why. But, I also definitely have an open mind about it. As I said earlier, Neil's pics of that failed bond in the Bene are very compelling. I'd love to know more about that. If it's a common occurrence, that's a serious problem.

So, I'm not hyping Plexus or anything else. But there is a lot of evidence out there that traditional tabbing is NOT the only or even best way to do things - and the use of adhesives is definitely on the rise. Now, you are welcome to listen to whomever you want for your boat buying advice. I'll just keep listening, researching, and challenging so I can learn.

It probably wouldn't be polite of me to SMACKDADDY you with a bunch of your prior posts. Perhaps it's true, as you say, that you merely wish to counter the claims of the bluewater boat crowd ("Salty-Salts" perhaps?) that certain mass-produced boats aren't built for serious ocean cruising. But is not your underlying theme an attempt instead to attribute the lower cost of these boats to modern mfg. methods? In other words, aren't you really trying to make the case that the lower cost of a Bene/Jeanneau/Bavaria/Catalina/Hunter/etc. is not due to cheaper & inferior construction to meet a price point set by the marketing dept., but rather a result of modern, time-saving, aseembly-line, less labor-intensive, newfound techniques & materials that have resulted in lower overall mfg. costs?

We obviously all have our biases, and yours is likely influenced by your own decision to buy a Hunter over the plethora of inexpensive, well-found used boats out there for sale in one of the longest running buyer's markets in recent history. My own bias is growing up around a bunch of Salty-Salts who taught me that you can sink in 10' of water just as easily as you can in 10,000', so I never really bought into the idea of "coastal" vs. "bluewater" cruisers. For me, there are well-found ocean-going boats, and then there are boats more suitable for day-sailing on bays & lakes. Maybe because I also come from a motorsports racing background, but I never got too excited about sailboat "racing." But hey, that's just me, and more power to you, Polux & others with different ideas about how they evaluate "performance" on a cruising boat. My Bristol points well, has impressive speed for a 20T cruising boat, and sails downwind like a rock, all of which I enjoy and are worthwhile features. But once I'm on my boat I've already "arrived" at my desired destination as far as I'm concerned, so I'm usually not in a big hurry.

Unlike some others, and notwithstanding my own admitted biases, I think the profusion of less expensive, mass-produced boats are a good thing since it makes big boat sailing more affordable to more people. What I find odd, however, is what appears to be your determined effort to validate owning this type of boat on the grounds that there's an explanation other than cheaper and yes, inferior construction that accounts for their lower cost. Of course these boats have circumnavigated and will continue to do so. But the question is not whether some of them with less than stellar reps can do it, but rather would you want to?

I have no doubt you are sincere when you say you are "listening, researching, and challenging so I can learn," but I often wonder from your posts who you may be listening to and what you are researching? Unlike autos & airplanes, there are a plethora of boat mfgs. (past & present), and the recreational side of the industry seems almost entirely unregulated. It thus seems reasonable to me to research which mfgs. enjoy a reputation for high build quality, and yes, to listen to those techs & surveyors who have actually worked on the boats. Instead, you seem heavily influenced by "what the large majority of boat builders are actually doing." Why not ask instead why they are doing it when it departs from long-established & proven practices?

It also strikes me as incongruous that you would immediately forego a similarly priced Swan in favor of your Hunter because it was 41 years old. You correctly acknowledge that the components in all boats, even new ones, have a finite lifespan. But the lifespan of a well-built fiberglass hull, especially one with the reputation of the older S&S designed Swan's, is not in fact finite, at least as anyone now knows. So leaving the aesthetics, romanticism (for some), and subjective factors of older "classic" boats aside, wouldn't a meticulously maintained older boat, with updated components, from a mfg. with a sound reputation be at least as worthy of consideration as a newer Hunter?? Again, this is leaving aside subjective preferences, and is not about Swan vs. Hunter. (I, for one, probably wouldn't sign up for the Swan's teak decks.). I just can't understand why people would opt for mfgs. with questionable reps without considering so many other superb choices (classic & modern) in this post-recession market.

I'm not trying to pick on you or your choice of boat gratutitously, and you obviously have significant analytical & research skills. I just question whether you're really on the right track putting more weight into what, as you've stated, most consumers are buying and what the big volume mfgs. are therefore designing, engineering and producing, as opposed to researching some boat building history and listening to what so many experienced people in the field and on this forum are consistently saying.

Maybe I'm wrong but you seem a bit new to all this. Maybe not sailing but perhaps boat ownership. A bit of humility can really go far in the educational process.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

....
I do agree that any kind of cruising in a slow boat is no fun. Not if you either (a) like to sail; and/or (b) like to actually get somewhere, under sail, and upwind if necessary. But you can achieve speed either by choosing a light racy boat like one of these, or a Bene First, etc., or by choosing a larger boat with longer waterline. The latter was my choice of how to achieve this.

I am not the kind of guy that thinks that the way I like to cruise or the boats I like are the ones everybody should like. In fact If I ever change of boat probably I would chose a smaller boat than mine, a 36/38ft boat and one even proportionally faster but I understand somebody that prefers big cruisers. There is an all new generation of them, push pull buttons that sail very well.

Size is important in what regards speed but as I have said, only between similar boats. In certain conditions an heavy big boat like yours (upwind with strong medium winds) have advantages over a fast performance cruiser like the J122, but that not all the story. Downwind and with light wind a really fast performance cruiser is faster. Not that matters because the ones that own boats like yours don't do it for the speed but for the comfort, at least most of them. Yes, on a transat a smaller boat will only be faster if sailed sportively and yours will make speed comfortably, but then the ones that have performance cruisers like to sail them sportively. Some would say that is not cruising...no, that is sailing, cruising is what we do from anchorage to anchorage on cruising grounds, but sailing pleasure for some is as important as cruising.

On mine, even if not as fast as a J122 (but not far), I beat on a passage, between Kitira and Crete a brand new Jeanneau 57 (faster than your boat), for about 45 minutes. Mine has only 41ft. Apparent wind was about 10K and that means that I can do about 7K. The Jeanneau couldn't and they tried hardand I did not even had mounted the big genoa but only the small jib.

Personally in what regards sailing, for me light wind performance is essential: All boats can sail with medium winds but many times what we got is light wind and that means the difference between sailing or motoring. With really light winds I can go faster than the wind and with about 6K wind (true) I make just half a not less than wind speed. That was the thing I was looking at when I choose my cruising boat: I wanted to sail, not motoring.

You have a great boat and no way I am saying otherwise, but to each his sailing pleasure.

There are big cruisers with great light air performance and that does not mean they are better or worse cruisers than your boat, but certainly better sailing with light winds. Look at the performance of the new Solaris 58:

2.8K true wind, 4.1Kspeed, 8K true wind, 7.3k speed with this one I would not be faster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpBu1qdD6zc

I would not have outsailed this one

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am not the kind of guy that thinks that the way I like to cruise or the boats I like are the ones everybody should like. In fact If I ever change of boat probably I would chose a smaller boat than mine, a 36/38ft boat and one even proportionally faster but I understand somebody that prefers big cruisers. There is an all new generation of them, push pull buttons that sail very well.

Size is important in what regards speed but as I have said, only between similar boats. In certain conditions an heavy big boat like yours (upwind with strong medium winds) a boat like yours have advantages over a fast performance cruiser like the J122 but that is about it. Downwind and with light wind a fast performance cruiser is faster. Not that matters because the ones that own boats like yours don't do it for the speed but for the comfort, at least most of them.

On mine, even if not as faster as a J122 (but not far), I beat on a passage between Kitira and Crete a brand new Jeanneau 57 (faster than your boat), for about 45 minutes. mine has only 41ft. Apparent wind about 10K and that means that I can do about 7K. The Jeanneau couldn't and they tried hardand I did not even had mounted the big genoa but only the small jib.

Personally in what regards sailing, for me light wind performance is essential: All boats can sail with medium wind but many times what we got is light wind and that means the difference between sailing or motoring. With really light winds I can go faster than the wind and with about 6K wind (true) I make just half a not less than wind speed. That was the thing I was looking at when I choose the boat.

You have a great boat and no way I am saying otherwise, but to each his sailing pleasure.

There are big cruisers with great light air performance but that does not mean they are better or worse than your boat, but certainly better sailing with light winds. Look at the performance of the new Solaris 58:

2.8K true wind, 4.1Kspeed, 8K true wind, 7.3k speed with this one I would not be faster

Yes, indeed, everyone has his own priorities and preferences. Light wind is not a big concern for me, as I have a self-pitching propeller and just put the motor on, if there's not enough drive from the sails. Besides that, up here above 50N, we don't really have too many light wind days.

A vastly bigger concern up here is getting upwind in 20 to 30 knots of true wind and an oceanic sea state. This demands a tough boat without too exaggerated SA/D, and in fact, a change of sails is not a bad thing here, and I'm having a carbon fiber blade jib made this winter for those exact conditions.

Up here, you need strength, and waterline length. Going upwind in 30 knots true for 500 miles across the North Sea is not where lightly built, smaller racer/cruisers, with SA/D over 20, and D/L of under 200, shine. This is where you want a big, and the bigger the better, and extremely strong boat, the stronger the better, like mine.

In the Med, with very different weather and sea states, the priorities will naturally be different.

So where we sail, also has a huge influence on all of this.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
Up here, you need strength, and waterline length. Going upwind in 30 knots true for 500 miles across the North Sea is not where lightly built, smaller racer/cruisers, with SA/D over 20, and D/L of under 200, shine. This is where you want a big, and the bigger the better, and extremely strong boat, the stronger the better, like mine.

In the Med, with very different weather and sea states, the priorities will naturally be different.

So where we sail, also has a huge influence on all of this.

Other thing I wanted on the boat was the ability to go upwind with lot's of sea and wind. The previous boat I had (a main market mass cruiser, fast on all points of sail was very bad at it). That's the main reason I prefer a performance cruiser the type of the J122 than one the type of Pogo. The Pogo can do it too (lot's of power) but cannot point as well and it is a lot more uncomfortable.

The conditions with 30/35K going upwind are a lot better on the Atlantic than on the Med, where going upwind with that kind of wind, against steep very short period 3 or 4 meters waves is much worse than going against 6 meter waves with a longer period and less steep. I have experience with both.

My boat can go on the med against 30k winds at 35º of the apparent wind doing around 5.5K, more if I open up a bit and for that I just use a slightly furled jib. But I agree, it is fun but my wife don't like it a bit. A big boat like yours can probably do a bit better but most of all more comfortably. But regarding your type of boat, but only slightly smaller than mine, say 45ft, the experience i have is that they can't, quite the contrary. I had that experience with several boats among them a Moody 425 that surprised me negatively and with a brand new Halberg Rassy 412, that even if considerably slower than mine, certainly sailed faster than the Moody. The Rassy performance only become much worse (to the point of given up and turn away) when the wind become very strong with very violent gusts.

Many think that a performance boat is not adapted to bad weather but they just have a huge stability, a big keel, narrow entry hulls and that gives them a very seaworthy behavior and they need very little sail on those conditions. They are designed to race in terrible conditions so they have to be very strong. Go to the Sydney Hobart results, a mostly upwind race with bad weather and you will see that there always some guys that enter with old big heavy boats. Compare their results with the ones of the lighter and much smaller performance cruisers, like the First 40, and you will see that they are slower....but certainly more comfortable

Saying this, I certainly would prefer to take really bad weather in your boat than on mine. There size and weight are not only a safety factor but a comfort factor....but then I really don't get that much bad weather neither do I want to..even if sometimes it just happens.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Exile

It probably wouldn't be polite of me to SMACKDADDY you with a bunch of your prior posts. Perhaps it's true, as you say, that you merely wish to counter the claims of the bluewater boat crowd ("Salty-Salts" perhaps?) that certain mass-produced boats aren't built for serious ocean cruising. But is not your underlying theme an attempt instead to attribute the lower cost of these boats to modern mfg. methods? In other words, aren't you really trying to make the case that the lower cost of a Bene/Jeanneau/Bavaria/Catalina/Hunter/etc. is not due to cheaper & inferior construction to meet a price point set by the marketing dept., but rather a result of modern, time-saving, aseembly-line, less labor-intensive, newfound techniques & materials that have resulted in lower overall mfg. costs?

We obviously all have our biases, and yours is likely influenced by your own decision to buy a Hunter over the plethora of inexpensive, well-found used boats out there for sale in one of the longest running buyer's markets in recent history. My own bias is growing up around a bunch of Salty-Salts who taught me that you can sink in 10' of water just as easily as you can in 10,000', so I never really bought into the idea of "coastal" vs. "bluewater" cruisers. For me, there are well-found ocean-going boats, and then there are boats more suitable for day-sailing on bays & lakes. Maybe because I also come from a motorsports racing background, but I never got too excited about sailboat "racing." But hey, that's just me, and more power to you, Polux & others with different ideas about how they evaluate "performance" on a cruising boat. My Bristol points well, has impressive speed for a 20T cruising boat, and sails downwind like a rock, all of which I enjoy and are worthwhile features. But once I'm on my boat I've already "arrived" at my desired destination as far as I'm concerned, so I'm usually not in a big hurry.

Unlike some others, and notwithstanding my own admitted biases, I think the profusion of less expensive, mass-produced boats are a good thing since it makes big boat sailing more affordable to more people. What I find odd, however, is what appears to be your determined effort to validate owning this type of boat on the grounds that there's an explanation other than cheaper and yes, inferior construction that accounts for their lower cost. Of course these boats have circumnavigated and will continue to do so. But the question is not whether some of them with less than stellar reps can do it, but rather would you want to?

I have no doubt you are sincere when you say you are "listening, researching, and challenging so I can learn," but I often wonder from your posts who you may be listening to and what you are researching? Unlike autos & airplanes, there are a plethora of boat mfgs. (past & present), and the recreational side of the industry seems almost entirely unregulated. It thus seems reasonable to me to research which mfgs. enjoy a reputation for high build quality, and yes, to listen to those techs & surveyors who have actually worked on the boats. Instead, you seem heavily influenced by "what the large majority of boat builders are actually doing." Why not ask instead why they are doing it when it departs from long-established & proven practices?

It also strikes me as incongruous that you would immediately forego a similarly priced Swan in favor of your Hunter because it was 41 years old. You correctly acknowledge that the components in all boats, even new ones, have a finite lifespan. But the lifespan of a well-built fiberglass hull, especially one with the reputation of the older S&S designed Swan's, is not in fact finite, at least as anyone now knows. So leaving the aesthetics, romanticism (for some), and subjective factors of older "classic" boats aside, wouldn't a meticulously maintained older boat, with updated components, from a mfg. with a sound reputation be at least as worthy of consideration as a newer Hunter?? Again, this is leaving aside subjective preferences, and is not about Swan vs. Hunter. (I, for one, probably wouldn't sign up for the Swan's teak decks.). I just can't understand why people would opt for mfgs. with questionable reps without considering so many other superb choices (classic & modern) in this post-recession market.

I'm not trying to pick on you or your choice of boat gratutitously, and you obviously have significant analytical & research skills. I just question whether you're really on the right track putting more weight into what, as you've stated, most consumers are buying and what the big volume mfgs. are therefore designing, engineering and producing, as opposed to researching some boat building history and listening to what so many experienced people in the field and on this forum are consistently saying.

Maybe I'm wrong but you seem a bit new to all this. Maybe not sailing but perhaps boat ownership. A bit of humility can really go far in the educational process.

Nicely said. And Bristols are great. I chose my Tartan over a Bristol 41 in part because I liked the interior better. But before I made that choice I looked inside each locker and at the tabbing of each bulkhead, the well thought out and bonded rudder tube, the heavily bolted autopilot ram mount secured to glassed in 1.5 inch bulkhead, and endless other construction details. Lead keels, robust bolts, etc. Same as what I saw in the Bristols. Tartan also sl more high tech with cored hull so lighter, and better on Chesapeake where we are based. Passed over many newer boats priced lower whose ultimate build quality seemed inferior. Systems typically turn over in 5-10 years, so it's really the hull and engine that need to be chosen for longterm IMHO.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

So Smack, lets say you have a Honda Civic, you drive the car to the dealers workshop for repairs, the mechanic explain to you that the injectors are faulty designed by Honda and they have lots of claims about that, he try to explain to you that the XXX Brand injector from another diferent manufacture is better, so then your answer its something like i dont believe you because i dont see any fact and please use the honda injector, well sounds silly sorry , bad example, but if Minaret , a pro in boat repair bussines with years dealing with boats tell you that metacrilate glue is not the right stuff for this purpose , you instead in be open minded and listen to a pro who is selling you a advice for free , throw away the advice and argue about some links you found in the net saying the contrary....

When you visit the dentist you argue too with the doc about this or that?

As for the Honda, I'd check into the claims - if the mechanic couldn't or wouldn't give me such evidence himself. Either way, if there were, indeed, a lot of them documented, I'd have no reason to doubt what the mechanic was saying. If he couldn't provide much evidence, or if there wasn't much evidence out there for these claims - I'd have good reason to question him.

In the case of Minaret, or you, or anyone - if you're saying something that doesn't line up with current industry standards and don't have much evidence to back it up - I'm going to question it. Yes. Even if you're a dentist.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But those are not cruising boats in any normal sense of the word. The J122 is more than 2 tons lighter than the Frers Swan 40!

I do agree that any kind of cruising in a slow boat is no fun. Not if you either (a) like to sail; and/or (b) like to actually get somewhere, under sail, and upwind if necessary. But you can achieve speed either by choosing a light racy boat like one of these, or a Bene First, etc., or by choosing a larger boat with longer waterline. The latter was my choice of how to achieve this.

This is where I think you're wrong Dock - and where I think you're missing Polux's point. Maybe to YOU J's "are not cruising boats in any normal sense of the word" - and are lighter than the Swan 40...but how does that categorically make them NOT cruising boats?

The answer is - it doesn't. You have your tastes. Others have theirs. Sailing World calls it a cruising boat (performance cruiser). They are just as "right" as you are as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, many of you guys have such a narrow definition of what a cruising yacht is - it's really strange.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

In the case of Minaret, or you, or anyone - if you're saying something that doesn't line up with current industry standards and don't have much evidence to back it up - I'm going to question it. Yes. Even if you're a dentist.

In today's boat world, you're probably better off questioning "current industry standards."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is where I think you're wrong Dock - and where I think you're missing Polux's point. Maybe to YOU J's "are not cruising boats in any normal sense of the word" - and are lighter than the Swan 40...but how does that categorically make them NOT cruising boats?

The answer is - it doesn't. You have your tastes. Others have theirs. Sailing World calls it a cruising boat (performance cruiser). They are just as "right" as you are as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, many of you guys have such a narrow definition of what a cruising yacht is - it's really strange.

Rather than "strange," maybe it's because many of these guys live on their boats, do a lot of cruising, and therefore have some insight into what constitutes a cruising boat. Possibly even more insight than editors of a sailing magazine or people who create brochures for new sailboats.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

It probably wouldn't be polite of me to SMACKDADDY you with a bunch of your prior posts. Perhaps it's true, as you say, that you merely wish to counter the claims of the bluewater boat crowd ("Salty-Salts" perhaps?) that certain mass-produced boats aren't built for serious ocean cruising. But is not your underlying theme an attempt instead to attribute the lower cost of these boats to modern mfg. methods? In other words, aren't you really trying to make the case that the lower cost of a Bene/Jeanneau/Bavaria/Catalina/Hunter/etc. is not due to cheaper & inferior construction to meet a price point set by the marketing dept., but rather a result of modern, time-saving, aseembly-line, less labor-intensive, newfound techniques & materials that have resulted in lower overall mfg. costs?

You're welcome to pull my posts. I'm fine with that. As for "Salty-Salts" - that's not the name I'd use for them - but what's in a name?

As for my "underlying theme" - I have absolutely no problem with a less expensive boat. I think that's a good thing. And of course that is usually due to cheaper construction. But you immediately equate cheaper with inferior in the same sentence. So does the bluewater crowd. I don't - at least not for the intended purpose. These boats are fine for cruising bluewater - and, for the most part, people can cruise that exact same bluewater in a Hunter or a Moody.

The other angle of this is that if these methods are actually categorically inferior - why are other "bluewater" builders starting to use them (liners in IPs, glued bulkheads in several different brands, etc.)?

Again, the problem is you guys jump straight to "inferior". And that's fine if you want to think that way - it's just far less "right" than you think it is.

Originally Posted by Exile

We obviously all have our biases, and yours is likely influenced by your own decision to buy a Hunter over the plethora of inexpensive, well-found used boats out there for sale in one of the longest running buyer's markets in recent history. My own bias is growing up around a bunch of Salty-Salts who taught me that you can sink in 10' of water just as easily as you can in 10,000', so I never really bought into the idea of "coastal" vs. "bluewater" cruisers. For me, there are well-found ocean-going boats, and then there are boats more suitable for day-sailing on bays & lakes. Maybe because I also come from a motorsports racing background, but I never got too excited about sailboat "racing." But hey, that's just me, and more power to you, Polux & others with different ideas about how they evaluate "performance" on a cruising boat. My Bristol points well, has impressive speed for a 20T cruising boat, and sails downwind like a rock, all of which I enjoy and are worthwhile features. But once I'm on my boat I've already "arrived" at my desired destination as far as I'm concerned, so I'm usually not in a big hurry.

I went through a 4 year search for our boat. And, like Michael on Sequitur, I started with all the older bluewater brands - or what you call "inexpensive, well-found used boats" - precisely because of the forum hype. But, also like him, after going through many, many such boats - I understood more and more that the forum hype didn't really make that much sense. Not for the way I was going to cruise and not for what I wanted in a boat. I just discovered that there was plenty of logic in going with a production boat that you liked over "inexpensive, well-found used boats" you felt you needed for some reason.

That's why Micheal named his Hunter what he named it. Sequitur.

It's not at all about justifying the Hunter, it's actually about trying to continually justify buying an old "bluewater" boat for the same price (or more) as a much nicer, newer production boat. For what? To please a forum crowd? No thanks.

That's a Non Sequitur.

So, I'm glad you like your Bristol. And I would never take anything away from it. It's a great boat. But I would never buy one. I'm very happy with my Hunter. We might even cross paths in the Caribbean. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Exile

Unlike some others, and notwithstanding my own admitted biases, I think the profusion of less expensive, mass-produced boats are a good thing since it makes big boat sailing more affordable to more people. What I find odd, however, is what appears to be your determined effort to validate owning this type of boat on the grounds that there's an explanation other than cheaper and yes, inferior construction that accounts for their lower cost. Of course these boats have circumnavigated and will continue to do so. But the question is not whether some of them with less than stellar reps can do it, but rather would you want to?

My point is, and always has been, that Class A production boats are perfectly suited to off-shore cruising as 99% of the world does it. They are bluewater boats. That's it.

If you think that this is not the case, that they are categorically "inferior", then I disagree. It's really nothing more than that. No hidden agenda.

Would I want to buy something you might think is "inferior"? Well, if there are productions boats out there circumnavigating - then why on earth would I think that this is not possible? Remember, I bought a Hunter....not a Bristol...when I could have bought a Bristol.

Originally Posted by Exile

I have no doubt you are sincere when you say you are "listening, researching, and challenging so I can learn," but I often wonder from your posts who you may be listening to and what you are researching? Unlike autos & airplanes, there are a plethora of boat mfgs. (past & present), and the recreational side of the industry seems almost entirely unregulated. It thus seems reasonable to me to research which mfgs. enjoy a reputation for high build quality, and yes, to listen to those techs & surveyors who have actually worked on the boats. Instead, you seem heavily influenced by "what the large majority of boat builders are actually doing." Why not ask instead why they are doing it when it departs from long-established & proven practices?

"Long-established & proven practices" are disappearing. If you haven't seen that in this thread - you're not reading it. It happens all the time. Who's through-bolting bulkheads these days? Very, very few. Practices/methods/materials change - but some guys think the ONLY good thing is the old thing. I don't. In fact, that mindset leads me to discount someone's viewpoint faster than just about anything.

I AM asking why. That's why I've done the research I've done including marketing materials, reviews and engineering testing. But my why, like my defense of the production boats, is aimed at people who think the old way is actually better. Because I don't buy that viewpoint - at least not as categorically is they put it out there.

Originally Posted by Exile

It also strikes me as incongruous that you would immediately forego a similarly priced Swan in favor of your Hunter because it was 41 years old. You correctly acknowledge that the components in all boats, even new ones, have a finite lifespan. But the lifespan of a well-built fiberglass hull, especially one with the reputation of the older S&S designed Swan's, is not in fact finite, at least as anyone now knows. So leaving the aesthetics, romanticism (for some), and subjective factors of older "classic" boats aside, wouldn't a meticulously maintained older boat, with updated components, from a mfg. with a sound reputation be at least as worthy of consideration as a newer Hunter?? Again, this is leaving aside subjective preferences, and is not about Swan vs. Hunter. (I, for one, probably wouldn't sign up for the Swan's teak decks.). I just can't understand why people would opt for mfgs. with questionable reps without considering so many other superb choices (classic & modern) in this post-recession market.

Again, this is what I mean about you and others' viewpoint being so myopic. Why would I want that 41 y.o. Swan? What exactly does it give ME that my Hunter doesn't?

My Hunter doesn't have a crapload of teak I have to maintain. The Swan rates 120 (N.E. PHRF). My Hunter rates 96. My Hunter is very comfy down below - the Swan is cramped. I have a huge aft cabin with centerline berth (like your Bristol), the Swan has a couple of aft quarterberths. My Hunter is very well equipped with all kinds of niceties - the Swan isn't. My Hunter is around 20 years newer - and it will take me and my boys where we are going just fine (as long as I don't screw things up).

So, I get it that you just can't understand it - but it's a very easy decision for me.

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not trying to pick on you or your choice of boat gratutitously, and you obviously have significant analytical & research skills. I just question whether you're really on the right track putting more weight into what, as you've stated, most consumers are buying and what the big volume mfgs. are therefore designing, engineering and producing, as opposed to researching some boat building history and listening to what so many experienced people in the field and on this forum are consistently saying.

I'm putting weight into what makes sense. That's it. If experienced people make sense, I put the weight there. If they don't - I put it somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe I'm wrong but you seem a bit new to all this. Maybe not sailing but perhaps boat ownership. A bit of humility can really go far in the educational process.

If "humility" means accepting someone's word simply because they say it - sorry.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

In today's boat world, you're probably better off questioning "current industry standards."

You guys are already doing a fine job of that.

[robert sailor]

We are waiting out a cold front that is holding us back from leaving so my boat jobs are just about wrapped and I have some spare time on my hands so why not revisit this crazy thread again, see if some people are still picking flyshit out of pepper, LOL


Many of the threads are good debates and that includes parts of this one however it’s a bit like debating religions. Who is really right? The answer is of course both sides, sort of.

If you own a boat that has been glued together you can make a case for glue being best and if your preference is tabbing then you can make a case for that. Glues have become more popular because it reduces the skilled labor needed and is the perfect answer for boats built on an assembly line with unskilled labor. This results in large cost savings and allows a lower price, on that there is no debate.
There is growing evidence that many of these boats, particularly the lower priced ones have a lifespan that is much less than boats built to the old methods. Some of the more knowledgeable members on this site have explained that these new CE ratings are based on a certain number of cycles and in one example used it was calculated that if a boat was raced hard and sailed offshore for a number of years that it was quite possible that it was basically used up. In other words it had used up the cycles it was originally designed to be able to withstand before things started to break.
Now that was one example and I’m quite sure that it was an extreme case as most sailboats sit in marinas for 95% of their life and get sailed on weekends in the summer months so it’s unlikely that it would ever see a boat used up, so to speak.


Glass tabbing of bulkheads is still very alive and well in the higher quality boats and is even finding its way back into some of the larger entry level boats but it is skilled labor intensive and is not a natural for assembly lines. Tabbing bulkheads to the hull means that the builder can not use a full liner and has to resort to smaller modules if they use liners at all which adds to the costs. Usually that’s not an issue because the larger more expensive boats are built in much smaller volumes and the builders know that this group of buyers do a lot more due diligence when buying so they are sensitive to the quality standards expected.


Offshore sailing is a completely different kettle of fish as many of these boats get more wear and tear on them on a long passage than a weekend warrior would get in their lifetime of sailing. Think about it, a typical weekend sailor might get 4 hours of sailing in each weekend for 20 weeks a year and that is generous because if you miss one weekend then you need to sail 8 the next to keep pace. That amounts to 80 hours of use a year, usually in protected waters. The boats are rarely subjected to really harsh conditions because if it really starts to blow the sailors simply don’t leave the dock.
Take an offshore passage like Mexico to the Marquises, many of these boats took 25 days to make this passage so let’s see, 25x24 is 600 hours or about equal to 7 ½ years. The same number of accumulated hours to see you get to NZ and now you are up to 15 years of cycles on the boat and rig compared to the average weekend warrior.
So it only makes sense that depending on what your plans for sailing are that you might choose a boat accordingly.


Does a light racer/cruiser as Polux suggests make sense? Well like everything, that depends. If you are going to load the boat up with all the stuff cruisers like to carry with them including a heavy dink on davits, several jerry cans of fuel and diesel, tons of spares and tools and enough food for a couple of months then maybe not because the boat will have been designed for a certain amount of weight and storage and if its overloaded then it will be subjected to rigging loads it wasn’t designed for as well as the performance would suffer as it sunk on its lines. This of course can be solved by choosing a much bigger racer/cruiser but even Polux is suggesting his next boat would be in the 36-38 foot range. Maybe the best choice here is a cruiser/racer.


If on the other hand you are more of a minimalist and can travel really light then sure some of the racer cruisers might be a good option. Just keep in mind that none of these boats sail in much under 5-7 knots of wind offshore because the larger swells are constantly shaking the wind out of the sails. Yes they can sail very well in light air in places like the Med but offshore the swell is always there and it is really hard to sail in light air in those conditions.
Others, like Dockside have expressed views that a, built like a tank, heavier/medium displacement vessel makes more sense for offshore cruising as they can pack huge loads and have room to spare. If the wind is light they just simply push a button and bring in the iron jenny to cover the light airs.
Maybe the answer for many sailors is somewhere in-between, heavy enough to be well built but light enough to be able to sail in lighter winds, this could depend on where in the world you plan on sailing.

As far as trying to make the best decision on older more robustly built boats or newer lighter built boats for offshore use it’s really a crap shoot. If the boat is new or on the newer side, say less than 10 years old and you are planning to cross a couple of oceans then there is a good case to be made for the newer boat no matter how its built because the systems aboard will still have some life in them and the hull and rigging will not have been exposed to that much use. Once the boat is well past 10 years old then it starts to get down to how old each of the components are. I have seen many boats that are 25 years old that are in much better condition than others that are 10-15 years old. Keep in mind that it is rare to have a glass boat actually come apart at sea; it’s the loss of a rudder or a failure in the rigging that is the more common occurrence. Yes it happened to Blue Pearl and CR but those were oddball cases, we hope!
There are so many choices out there and none is perfect for everyone. The sort of throw around money you have plays a huge role. Obviously if Smack had the coin to buy a new Oyster or the like we wouldn’t be having this debate. Smack chose a Hunter and I expect for the money he has invested (bad choice for sailboats I know) and the use he is going to put the boat through he has made a good choice. Similarly it looks like Dockside is in the same position, for his use a wonderful well built boat. Polux our speed freak friend (my wife always says, why do you even use that word speed with things that move the same speed as I can walk) is on the lighter and faster is better side, looks like his choice is a great one as well.


So what is your religion and what will you say to get me to change mine?? The answer of course is you can’t so all the great ideas and information here falls on deaf ears because all the players had their minds made up before the game started. Our boat builder friends here are very opinionated and that comes from deep experience. Experienced offshore sailors are deeply opinionated and that comes from years of experience. That of course does not stop the less experienced from having their views, that’s what CF is all about.
And finally and to me this is very important and that is pride of ownership. When we dingy away from our boat do we slow down for a minute and look back and admire our little ship? Do we have deep confidence in how it was put together? Are we proud to have others aboard? No matter the costs is it giving us a payback in the enjoyment we feel when we are using it.



We are off and running again, catch up with you guys later. R

[4music3]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Ahhh those math lovers with numbers and numbers, i guess that 1% is nothing for many, but hey ,,,a family of 5 in a gale with a rocky leeshore and that 1% is to much, no???

Seems like a real kick ass anchor would be a good thing too.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Anyone remember a Brand new J122 aground in a sandbank in Kentish beach without keel? I think is a great boat, fast, fun, sporty, but i dont want to have a grounding in one.

I remember the story very well, it had impressed me: they tried to enter a very difficult bar with bad weather in an impossible way and things went out of control. I remember that there was a nasty sea with short waves and the boat was banged incessantly against the ground for hours while being dragged by the tide.

This was the condition in what the Yacht was when it was town ashore. it was not only the keel. The boat was a complete wreck but very relevant to this thread you may notice that the rudder seems intact.

J-122 yacht 'Justice' wrecked on a Kentish beach - YouTube

Somebody had described why the conditions are so bad on that place and another why the should never had attempted that:

"The foreland coming out of the Thames estuary to Ramsgate is notoriously difficult with wind over tide. Two seas meet here the north and the English channel, Atlantic. Really difficult steep,short waves are often the result. "

"No one in there right mind would take the inner route with a 2mtr keel even in calm sea's, before they moved the channel bouys there was only 1.9 at best 3hrs after H/W My yacht draws 1.70mtr and Ihave done this route S/handed at night many times, but over this last year we all go Queens channal/Princess channel, either up the thames or to france/Ramegate/dover. Bad Skipper call."