Bavaria or Hunter Bashing

[Polux]

Originally Posted by carstenb

...
Many say the Bavarias are flimsy and "cheapened down". I'll readily admit my Jeaneau is a considerably heavier build - but the price tag was also quite a bit higher. Had we not wanted to do an RTW - we would have kept the bavaria - it was fine for cruising the Baltic and down to the med.

I don't think Jeanneaut has a heavier build than a modern Bavaria. Along the way, after that story of the keels with the Match 42 they re- thought the strategy and started to make heavier and stronger boats. Look at the weight of the Bavarias and the one of Jeanneau, made essentially the same way. Only now they seemed to have gone through that trauma and are again starting diminishing the weight on their boats that even so are heavier than the French ones.

Price sometimes is not an indicator of how strong a boat is. Take for instance Varianta, a strong boat at an incredible price. When Hanse cut on things to make it cheaper did not cut on structural strength but on the absence of port hulls, less hatches, re-utilization of different parts of other already existing hulls and boats, very basic interior, less amenities and so on.

[a64pilot]

Mark,
I can't afford a new boat, or won't anyway so new and 5 yr old mean nothing to me. By build quality I mean similar in a mono and a Cat, wouldn't put a Lagoon up against a Swan and say a Cat is inferior, wouldn't be fair to the Lagoon would it?

But yes, I'm old fashioned, I admit it, I do prefer solid wood interiors to light composite panels.

I am not saying Cats are better or worse, just they seem to be more expensive, as I said they are more in demand or appear to be.

Put another way, if I were selling, I'd rather be selling a Cat as I think it's more likely it would sell quicker and at a better price, but I was buying

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by Polux

. When Hanse cut on things to make it cheaper did not cut on structural strength but on the absence of port hulls, less hatches, re-utilization of different parts of other already existing hulls and boats, very basic interior, less amenities and so on.

A boat has a hull, through-hulls, and port holes. No port hulls.

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

Agreed.

My philosophy when buying the boat, was not to get the biggest, newest, or fastest boat I could afford, but the best quality, on the principle that this will result in the lowest depreciation and long-term running costs (not to mention best safety at sea). So far this has worked out well - not a single structural or build-related issue. I did have to replace a worn lower rudder bushing.

On the downside, it's rather slow downwind, and not as roomy inside as a modern boat.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

So far this has worked out well - not a single structural or build-related issue.

Same with my 14 year old Hunter

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Agreed.

My philosophy when buying the boat, was not to get the biggest, newest, or fastest boat I could afford, but the best quality, on the principle that this will result in the lowest depreciation and long-term running costs (not to mention best safety at sea). So far this has worked out well - not a single structural or build-related issue. I did have to replace a worn lower rudder bushing.

On the downside, it's rather slow downwind, and not as roomy inside as a modern boat.

Yep. Those compromises. We all have them.

And I too am very happy with my running costs and safety at sea thus far. So it sounds like we're in the same boat as it were.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

.
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.
..

This was supposed to be only Bavaria and Hunter bashing but since you bring it Beneteau in...I don't know of any keel lost on a Beneteau, as they are called on those parts but on a First, that normally are called First even if they are built by Beneteau. Regarding the First I only know of two keels lost both on the same model, the 40.7.

One of them on the First 40.7, Barracuda lost its keel after having pounded on the bottom in heavy seas and a recent case with another 40.7 that seems not to have hit anything but that went to sea in an unseaworthy condition with a lose keel and that lost it in severe weather conditions due to that.

If you mean by your post that on all boats with a non encapsulated keel should be verified each year if the keel bolts are well tightened, yes that's true, I had always done that and any shipyard that took care of a boat maintenance should do that. It is a 10m job.

Regarding the First 40.7 there are many hundreds of them out there, some doing repetitively very nasty race sails like the Sydney Hobart and at least one doing a circumnavigating by the Horn and that sailed extensively on Antarctica. In fact i remember that they were hit there by a huge storm that put several boats in danger, that a steel cruising boat went under and they had survived it with flying colors.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Yep. Those compromises. We all have them.

And I too am very happy with my running costs and safety at sea thus far. So it sounds like we're in the same boat as it were.

Quite possibly a different boat, actually, at least when it comes to depreciation and long-term running costs. As has already been pointed out, after 25 years you may want to drop your rudder & your keel, but your bronze through-hulls & seacocks may be OK!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Same with my 14 year old Hunter

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

This was supposed to be only Bavaria and Hunter bashing but since you bring it Beneteau in...I don't know of any keel lost on a Beneteau, as they are called on those parts but on a First, that normally are called First even if they are built by Beneteau. Regarding the First I only know of two keels lost both on the same model, the 40.7.

One of them on the First 40.7, Barracuda lost its keel after having pounded on the bottom in heavy seas and a recent case with another 40.7 that seems not to have hit anything but that went to sea in an unseaworthy condition with a lose keel and that lost it in severe weather conditions due to that.

If you mean by your post that on all boats with a non encapsulated keel should be verified each year if the keel bolts are well tightened, yes that's true, I had always done that and any shipyard that took care of a boat maintenance should do that. It is a 10m job.

Regarding the First 40.7 there are many hundreds of them out there, some doing repetitively very nasty race sails like the Sydney Hobart and at least one doing a circumnavigating by the Horn and that sailed extensively on Antarctica. In fact i remember that they were hit there by a huge storm that put several boats in danger, that a steel cruising boat went under and they had survived it with flying colors.

And your point obviously is that a Benni first 40.7 is a much stronger and sea kindly boat than a steel cruising boat??? Polux even for you that is a ridiculous apology to make!

[MarkSF]

Yep, most of the Wilcox-Crittendon seacocks are going strong. I replaced a couple that were so worn that they leaked continuously, no matter what. (the ones that are cycled most). 30 years old, and will probably go for another 30.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

And your point obviously is that a Benni first 40.7 is a much stronger and sea kindly boat than a steel cruising boat??? Polux even for you that is a ridiculous apology to make!

Sorry analogy not apology

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

A boat has a hull, through-hulls, and port holes. No port hulls.

My boat has a port hull. A starboard one too.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

My boat has a port hull. A starboard one too.

Screen wipes required.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Yep, most of the Wilcox-Crittendon seacocks are going strong. I replaced a couple that were so worn that they leaked continuously, no matter what. (the ones that are cycled most). 30 years old, and will probably go for another 30.

Yup, ditto for my near 30 yr. old Spartans, but your comments about high quality bronze seacocks & encapsulated lead keels bring up the larger question for me of whether by buying a more expensive (when new) boat, a buyer is really getting something stronger & more durable, or whether it just comes down to paying more for luxury items such as nice interiors. It's not just about fin keels since those can and are made by encapsulating vs. bolts (to a point). And besides, many of the high-end modern mfgs. have been using bolted-on keels for a long time w/o any reported failures (that I've heard of, anyway). As previously mentioned, I doubt anyone really worries about these sorts of catastrophic things on modern Moody's, Amel's, Swan's & Najad's to name a few.

I remain curious because b'twn my purchase price in 2007 & refitting basically only the heads, electronics, and standing rigging, I probably have about the same money into my Bristol as I would be paying for a new production boat loaded up with premium options. Like your's, my Bristol may not be as fast downwind, but it points & sails upwind admirably and certainly doesn't bash (sorry). In fact, it's extremely seakindly & confidence inspiring on all points of sail, routinely achieves hull speed in lighter winds (more easily on a close reach), has an incredible teak interior (if you like that kinda thing), and can indisputedly sail anywhere in the world (even if I can't . . . yet ). This is not to quibble with those who are really into speed, performance & lightweight boats, but for those who want to cruise in comfort and judge performance more on how a boat sails on the most difficult point of sail (i.e. close to the wind) vs. the easiest, it seems as though today's used boat market offers extremely attractive alternatives not just for those on a more limited budget, but even for those who can otherwise afford brand new production boats.