Bavaria or Hunter Bashing

[Exile]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

All boats are compromises.

I can somewhat understand someone defending their choice in boat. I find it more difficult to understand someone pressing the issue on someone else's choice in boat. There really isn't the need.

I really appreciate this comment, and regret if I've ever been guilty of this.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Without knowing the exact numbers, I'd say that Bavaria is the most owned boat in Denmark (at least when you walk around the marinas). Some have had bad experiences with owning a bAvaria (there's always someone who has had a bad experience wiht any brand of boat), but if you look closely at a Bavaria it has:

lewmar winches
selden mast and boom
volvo penta saildrive
furlex genua furling
raymarine instrumentation
danfoss refrigeration

Most sailors would consider the above brands to be of reasonable qualtiy, especially for the weekend crowd or those not going high lat.

So what are compaints about?

thin glass - maybe, but lets remember the target market

poor cabinetry work - well for the price difference between a bavaria and say a Faurby (hand crafted) you can rip the guts out of a bavaria, have new cabinets hand crafted an still have a fairly substantial cruising kitty left over

poor sailing characteristics - my 33 footer sailed no better nor worse than most cruising boat. Had I taken the time and made the efforts to rerig the genua etc I could have gotten her to sail closer to the wind

Is it bashing to critize a boat - no not unless the critism is irrationally and applied liberally with a broad brush.

Wow! Actual FACTS! And reason too. Without censorship and with a dose of civility, these types of threads have dispelled some stereotypes and left me more comfortable about the proliferation of mass-produced boats. But without openly discussing prior keel & rudder failures, to cite one example, I wouldn't have learned that this is apparently old news and has (hopefully) been remedied. But a report of what appears to be an isolated dismasting or cleat failure is also easy to put into proper perspective, given all the unrelated variables that could have contributed. It's also easy to understand how someone who personally experienced or witnessed various failures on a boat would be forever turned off on a particular brand.

So maybe the bottom line is that the fans will have to tolerate a certain amount of negativity or even bashing if they want to turn perceptions around.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

Off topic, but that was the sailaway price of a fully loaded Manta 40 catamaran in 1998.

I bring this up because catamarans are widely sited as being way more expensive than monohulls. I don't see this being the case myself when comparing reasonably close examples - even today, but that old saw is trotted out continually.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program…

Mark

I had always just assumed it was because build costs were higher -- two hulls, two engines (often), etc. No?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

I had always just assumed it was because build costs were higher -- two hulls, two engines (often), etc. No?

Two engines, yes, but hulls are relative. In the above example, I was comparing a 40' catamaran to a 46' mono, which I think is a relatively close comparison in accommodations and space. Other than the spare engine, other fitout equipment is pretty much similar.

I have found that the mono/cat cost argument really only works when comparing older monos with newer cats, or when comparing absolute LOA.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

But without openly discussing prior keel & rudder failures, to cite one example, I wouldn't have learned that this is apparently old news and has (hopefully) been remedied. But a report of what appears to be an isolated dismasting or cleat failure is also easy to put into proper perspective, given all the unrelated variables that could have contributed. It's also easy to understand how someone who personally experienced or witnessed various failures on a boat would be forever turned off on a particular brand.

You've been a member here for 4+ years. And you've just learned that production boats aren't as bad as they've been made out to be on this forum during that time.

Does this tell you anything?

Think about being a newb researching a boat purchase. What do you think they would have learned in those 4+ years?

That's why I've pressed the issue. It sounds like we're finally getting somewhere.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I will not debate that statement in general but I would think hard and long before I bought a boat from a builder that had a history of loosing keels because I can not think of anything worse that could happen to a boat at sea. I am not aware of any middle of the road builder that has had a keel fall off at sea but we now see a couple of the entry level builders that have had keels fall off, that would not pass my smell test as it tells me the engineering margins while working on "most" of the boats is not adequate for all of the boats. Which is another way of saying that these boats are built to engineering standards that are very close to the line.

I must say the accounts of keels falling off, albeit it in very small numbers, freaks me out a bit. Hopefully not deemd a bashing thing, as I'm well aware of how groundings, etc. can compromise the structure, allow water ingress, corrosion to keel bolts, etc. I would just like to think the technology exists, at not much greater cost I imagine, to insure this doesn't happen. Or maybe it's more of a question of the mfgs. insisting on more routine inspections & servicing. Not sure if that's realistic w/o outside regulation.

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by Exile

I must say the accounts of keels falling off, albeit it in very small numbers, freaks me out a bit. Hopefully not deemd a bashing thing, as I'm well aware of how groundings, etc. can compromise the structure, allow water ingress, corrosion to keel bolts, etc. I would just like to think the technology exists, at not much greater cost I imagine, to insure this doesn't happen. Or maybe it's more of a question of the mfgs. insisting on more routine inspections & servicing. Not sure if that's realistic w/o outside regulation.

The technology does exist, it's called a fully encapsulated keel. Like Bristols have. Ever heard of a keel falling off a Bristol? Thought not.

I like the fact that Beneteau blamed some keel failures on bad maintenance. To me, it does not seem normal to have to maintain the attachment points of something so critical, once a year.

Sum total of maintenance of my keel / hull attachment over the last 30 years : none at all.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

The technology does exist, it's called a fully encapsulated keel. Like Bristols have. Ever heard of a keel falling off a Bristol? Thought not.

I like the fact that Beneteau blamed some keel failures on bad maintenance. To me, it does not seem normal to have to maintain the attachment points of something so critical, once a year.

Sum total of maintenance of my keel / hull attachment over the last 30 years : none at all.

Exactly. Keel bolts are not exactly oil changes, although frankly, I do get the yard guys to check the torque on them when the boat is on the hard. I doubt that we will ever see many encapsulated keels on the so-called production boats, as that would just increase their cost of production and they do not receive any benefit from that. Very few, if any manufacturers still encapsulate keels.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Sum total of maintenance of my keel / hull attachment over the last 30 years : none at all.

That's good for you. Of course, if you have a fin keel like most modern boats, not paying attention to it is kinda bad.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

You've been a member here for 4+ years. And you've just learned that production boats aren't as bad as they've been made out to be on this forum during that time.

Does this tell you anything?

Think about being a newb researching a boat purchase. What do you think they would have learned in those 4+ years?

That's why I've pressed the issue. It sounds like we're finally getting somewhere.

Been focused more on learning about my own boat the past 4 years, so to the extent I've been tuned into the forums it's been time spent on Minaret & CPA's refit threads, for example, and not on threads with people bent on making themselves feel better about their purchase of a lower end boat. Or worse, an OP looking to be provocative so they can run back to SA boasting that they've been banned over at CF. You might give the more technical threads a shot. Very smart, friendly, & generous people over there, and maybe you can even learn how to connect up your mast wires yourself.

My impressions are always made by the personality & character of the owners of various other boats at the dock (or on the internet) and not what type of boat they happen to own. I can usually tell which are the production boat owners, however, because they are the ones teasing me when they catch me on deck varnishing . . . again! Given the profusion of production boat sales over the past 20 years, I'd say the newbs you profess so much concern for are doing just fine without you, and without the internet I might add of whom relatively few are probably tuned into to.

So yes, if we're talking about the new boat or 0-5 year old used boat market, the economies are hard to deny, although John Harries' "Adventure 40" over at Attainable Adventure Cruising looks like it may demonstrate that you can buy a brand new, truly world capable, undisputedly bluewater boat for as little as $200,000. But if you're talking more about the newbs looking at 25-30 year old boats in today's market, there are just too many -- fully refitted & not -- from mfgs. with stellar reps to compel buying an old production boat based on price alone. And no, they're not all slow, heavy, piratey looking boats with full keels either. Unless you just prefer owning an old production boat regardless -- then that's a personal choice & there's nothing more to argue about.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

Two engines, yes, but hulls are relative. In the above example, I was comparing a 40' catamaran to a 46' mono, which I think is a relatively close comparison in accommodations and space. Other than the spare engine, other fitout equipment is pretty much similar.

I have found that the mono/cat cost argument really only works when comparing older monos with newer cats, or when comparing absolute LOA.

Mark

That's a good point. I think mono owners who say this are likely making price comparisons based on hull length alone, and obviously not taking into account the additional space a multi affords.

[a64pilot]

I'd say most Cats are more expensive than monos, if nothing else it seems that most are newer and more sought after, so anything that is more popular, is more expensive.
Comparing similar build qualities for each design that is, although I'll admit I did sort of rule Cats out early, based on cost, more money than I wanted to spend.

There are many things I like about the design, things that don't seem to be talked about that much, the redundancy of dual rudders, engines etc. From a safety standpoint, it could be almost like having a spare boat

[colemj]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I'd say most Cats are more expensive than monos, if nothing else it seems that most are newer and more sought after, so anything that is more popular, is more expensive.
Comparing similar build qualities for each design that is, although I'll admit I did sort of rule Cats out early, based on cost, more money than I wanted to spend.

This is the type of reasoning I was trying to point out as wrong. Yes, you can buy cheaper monos on average than catamarans simply because there are cheaper ones out there. One can't compare a 20yr old mono with a 5yr old catamaran. Nor a 38' mono with a 38' catamaran.

But look at new boats and compare prices of relatively similar monos and cats. You will not find that price difference. In my example above, it didn't even exist in 1998.

Look at used boats of similar age and relative size and this doesn't bear out either. For example, used Lagoon 38's sell for $150-200K, which is the same price range similar years Beneteau 45-46' are selling for.

Build quality is a red herring. You are assuming your preference for 2" thick CSM and woven roving, solid wood interiors, etc equates to better build qualities than thin, light composite panels, cored interiors, etc.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by colemj

This is the type of reasoning I was trying to point out as wrong. Yes, you can buy cheaper monos on average than catamarans simply because there are cheaper ones out there. One can't compare a 20yr old mono with a 5yr old catamaran. Nor a 38' mono with a 38' catamaran.

But look at new boats and compare prices of relatively similar monos and cats. You will not find that price difference. In my example above, it didn't even exist in 1998.

Look at used boats of similar age and relative size and this doesn't bear out either. For example, used Lagoon 38's sell for $150-200K, which is the same price range similar years Beneteau 45-46' are selling for.

Build quality is a red herring. You are assuming your preference for 2" thick CSM and woven roving, solid wood interiors, etc equates to better build qualities than thin, light composite panels, cored interiors, etc.

Mark

Mark who are the Cat builders that use thin,light composite panels in hull construction?

[letsgetsailing3]

When did this become a monohull vs cat conversation?

Or are all conversations monohull vs cat? That's probably a discussion worthy of it's own thread, if it hasn't been done already...