Hinckley Bermuda 40 vs Tartan 37

[endurance]

Tom -

I'm NJ - thanks for the info.

R

[endurance]

The brightwork comment is no joke. The B40 has lots. My T34 has the same style of brightwork that the B40 sports (though 6ft less of it of course) and I can barely keep up. Let it go, and the boat looks absolutely dreadful (AND you'd be comitting a crime against humanity!).[/quote]

I was up in Maine to look at a few boats last weekend; H40 and H43. The H-40 was a 1974 yawl - it was lying on beautiful Castine Bay, a picture perfect! The bright work scared sh.. out me! It was completely redone in 08; new 52 hp Yanmar, new sails, new electric primaries .... if I were to nit pick; tight cockpit as the main sheet is behind the wheel, not much room below, centerboard crank is in the galley (105 cranks for full travel on CB) and lots of bright work !!!! Overall ... sexy .... definately consider it!

H-43 was set up for racing - lots of high tech sails, hydraulic back stay, hyd-boom vang, 2ndary carbon backstay for the stay sail .... overwhelming! Not for a short-hand sailing. Would consider as a live aboard boat but this H-43 is not the one for me .. I have no intention of racing. I do like the fact H-43 draws 4'4" board up and has tons of room below. It also had miles and miles of bright work!!!

Thanks for all your feedback .. a lot to take in. I am planning on looking at some T-37s next few weeks ... and another H-43 in Md.

Rick

[sneuman]

I have not sailed either boat, but ...

I have seen the foam-cored sandwich between two thin layers of fiberglass of the Tartan hull in a boat that was on the hard after being gashed by god-knows-what. It wasn't a pretty sight.

I think the Tartans are beautiful boats, but after I saw that it made me think maybe that heavy all fiberglass layup is not such a bad thing. I could be wrong, especially since I don't know the exact circumstances, but my gut is a fully laidup boat would have fared much better

[tartan37224]

I have seen the foam-cored sandwich between two thin layers of fiberglass of the Tartan hull in a boat that was on the hard after being gashed by god-knows-what. It wasn't a pretty sight.

I think the Tartans are beautiful boats, but after I saw that it made me think maybe that heavy all fiberglass layup is not such a bad thing. I could be wrong, especially since I don't know the exact circumstances, but my gut is a fully laidup boat would have fared much better.

A rock ledge isn't going to be kind to either hull type. I've seen solid hulls that had been holed and sunk by such impact.

If it was foam cored, the boat you saw was a newer hull and the thin layers you refer to may be epoxy. The T37 has a balsa core and the fiberglass layers are fairly substantial.

Tom

[CarlF]

It all cone

[CarlF]

It all comes down to build quality. Is the core to save money or make a better boat? In both cored and non-cored you want an "overbuilt" laminate from a builder with great quality control.

Shannon Yachts, who are known for bullet proof hulls, switched to foam core twenty years ago. Solid laminate does not always fare better when you hit something. A cored construction is really two hulls with a crush space between. Often the outer skin will be holed but not the inner skin - and no leak. Single skins - even thick ones - can crack when hit hard and the water comes in.

Tartan built strong boats. Your surveyor will do a routine check for water in the hull core. If nothing shows up - and it probably won't. I'd worry about other things.

Carl

[Dockhead]

I had misgivings about the balsa core in the hull of our present boat, when we bought her. I definitely considered it a negative.

On the negative side, it is definitely an additional failure point/source of problems.

On the positive side, however, I can say that it makes the hull incredibly stiff, very noticeable sailing in rough weather.

Besides that, there were other unexpected benefits:

1. Quiet! The cored hull muffles sound, and it is remarkably quiet below. Shut the hatches tight and you can even sleep through the waterside disco next to that marina.

2. Warm. Much easier to heat, and NO CONDENSATION except inner glass surfaces of portholes.

On our boat, the outer hull skin forward of the keel is Kevlar, for collision protection.


I notice that you have a choice between solid or cored hull with some Scandanavian boats. The solid hull is standard; the cored hull is an expensive option.

[eyschulman]

your right about the balsa best building building material great for light fast boyant boats.

[TEASER1]

I have owned and sailed a Bermuda 40, (a 1985 Stoway Sloop) for 25 years. She is solid and powerful; and while I can't complain about her upwind performance, it is honestly not stellar. That being said, her build quality and motion in a seaway are sublime. Our centerboard may be adjusted to any setting between "up" and "down," either by a crank handle that takes 120 turns, or by an electric motor that does it for you. Her 4'3" draft lets you cruise anywhere, and utilize dock space almost nobody else can.

After 25 years, nothing rattles or creaks when she is underway. I am still besotted with the boat's beauty, and I have never felt that I'd be better off in another boat in bad weather. However, I have been in nasty weather on other boats and have missed the B40! In that time I can also say I have only seen a handful of boats that are more beautiful, none of which I would rather own. If you are worried about getting wet or interior space, you might consider buying a center cockpit boat, but I have not found the Hinckley to be exceptionally wet. In The World's Best Sailboats, Fernec Mate calls the Bermuda 40 "quite possibly the finest fiberglass boat of all time." I am biased, but I agree. Yes, the bright work is a bear, but being aboard a B40 is its own reward; you feel so great looking upon her as you row away from her. That's the reason the B40 had the longest production run for any production sailboat- she's just a legend. Isn't that the point? People routinely come up and admire the boat wherever we go- she's always the 'belle' of the ball, and that's a lot of fun.... We looked at the Tartan, and it's a fine boat. But I am sure we would not have kept one for a quarter of a century. Pay a little more in upkeep, spend another couple of days varnishing, and own the legend. We live once.

[cburger]

Originally Posted by TEASER1

I have owned and sailed a Bermuda 40, (a 1985 Stoway Sloop) for 25 years. She is solid and powerful; and while I can't complain about her upwind performance, it is honestly not stellar. That being said, her build quality and motion in a seaway are sublime. Our centerboard may be adjusted to any setting between "up" and "down," either by a crank handle that takes 120 turns, or by an electric motor that does it for you. Her 4'3" draft lets you cruise anywhere, and utilize dock space almost nobody else can.

After 25 years, nothing rattles or creaks when she is underway. I am still besotted with the boat's beauty, and I have never felt that I'd be better off in another boat in bad weather. However, I have been in nasty weather on other boats and have missed the B40! In that time I can also say I have only seen a handful of boats that are more beautiful, none of which I would rather own. If you are worried about getting wet or interior space, you might consider buying a center cockpit boat, but I have not found the Hinckley to be exceptionally wet. In The World's Best Sailboats, Fernec Mate calls the Bermuda 40 "quite possibly the finest fiberglass boat of all time." I am biased, but I agree. Yes, the bright work is a bear, but being aboard a B40 is its own reward; you feel so great looking upon her as you row away from her. That's the reason the B40 had the longest production run for any production sailboat- she's just a legend. Isn't that the point? People routinely come up and admire the boat wherever we go- she's always the 'belle' of the ball, and that's a lot of fun.... We looked at the Tartan, and it's a fine boat. But I am sure we would not have kept one for a quarter of a century. Pay a little more in upkeep, spend another couple of days varnishing, and own the legend. We live once.

Wonderful to hear such pasion

[Curmudgeon]

Well, if I were buying new, I'd take the Tartan and pocket the 700K price difference between it and a new Hinckley B40 (if they still make them) or SW42. The Tartan 3700 is really a nice boat, even though it has a spade rudder unprotected by a skeg.

If you are buying used, it gets more complicated. The Hinckley build quality is simply outstanding. They last.

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by TEASER1

I have owned and sailed a Bermuda 40, (a 1985 Stoway Sloop) for 25 years.

After 25 years, nothing rattles or creaks when she is underway. I am still besotted with the boat's beauty, and I have never felt that I'd be better off in another boat in bad weather.

+1

Your B-40 was built the same year as my SW-42, I can only echo your well spoken words. I desire no other.

I am an engineer, and appreciate how difficult it is to do something very, very well indeed. Hinckley doesn't settle for "very, very well indeed". Their goal is much higher, and the longer I own my boat, the more I appreciate their almost absurd dedication to quality. I can say without hesitation that my Hinckley is the most finely crafted thing I've ever owned.

[kismet]

It must be nice to enjoy such riches.

[Sandero]

The I beam analogy is not quite accurate but perhaps easy to understand. When a sheet of material bends by placing a load on it the sheet will begin to deform. This causes the material to experiences compression forces at the side of the load diminishing as you move through the thickness of the sheet to were there are no compression or tension forces - the so called neutral axis and then as you move to the other side the forces are in tension - stretching or pulling the material.

If you think of a "beam" of 1/2" thick rubber spanning 12" and place a load in the center the weight will cause the rubber to sag. The top surface (compression) will measure just under 12" and the bottom (tension) just over 12". If the beam is made from 2 - 1/4" pieces on atop the other when loaded each piece acts as the same but they will slip (shear) actually giving you two 1/4" beams and not one 1/2" beam.

To limit deflection of a something which needs to be stiff, the thicker you make it ie separate the tension plane from the compression plane the less deflection you will see. But the tension plane and the compression plane must be structurally connection. The ideal beam action would distribute the material mass to match the profile of compression and tension, but this is not practical so the separation material needs to strongly attached to the tension plane and the compression plane or it will shear off. The web or connecting material is also acting like a beam with compression on the top and tension on the bottom. wider connection material (web) means that the compression side must be compressed a lot and the tension side stretched a lot for it to deflect. Deeper beams deflect less and are stiffer.

Composite construction depends on the two surfaces being able to deal with compressive and tensile stress and bond well the the core which connect the two. If the core delaminates from the surfaces, the strength and stiffness is reduced to that of the surface layer. This becomes the critical factor for cored hulls - ie to completely have the core engage both surfaces with no voids and no delaminations. Water can obviously weaken a wood core. Further water can migrate into the composite core depending on the pathways formed by the layup. This can lead to delamination.

Curved shapes are like pre tensioned beams, ie with the load side (compression) arched to the load. This makes them a bit shorter to begin with and more resistant to stretching (tension). This is why wood beams are set with the crown up and long span bridges over have an arch to their support structure.

Curved hulls (shapes) are stronger (stiffer)!

Explained here:

http://www.zallenengineering.com/On-...sues/OL-15.pdf