Why Are Bavaria Yachts Not Well-Liked Here ?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by neilpride

A spade ruder is definitely the most vulnerable tipe of design ever made , just imagine a spade ruder boat hove to in a storm , when the boat fall backwards from a wave the huge loads that supports the rudder shaft are destructive , a huge line or steel wire hooked in the ruder also tend to bend the shaft or break the ruder , cuz the rudder is suported in the top normally by a couple of bearings all the lateral loads tend to wear the top bearing, and the most funny faulty design i see is spade rudders with almost the same draft that the keel, grounding is not a option.... Cheers.

My sentiments exactly.

It's not "faulty design", however. It's a tradeoff which strongly favors performance, and assumes that there will be help nearby if you end up with a jagged hole where your rudder used to be. Not for me!

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I had a boat like that. My own taste is further up the performance scale, but not so far as to have a spade rudder.

My Wauquiez was exceptional to the windward, for a non-racing boat. This boat is not. But she's neither poor to the windward nor slow. In six knots of wind I have passed a 40' Caliber to the windward, sailing faster and pointing higher.

A Caliber is not a go-fast boat, but then neither is mine. I describe her perfomance as average. But I love her tankage (120 gallons of fresh water and 99 gallons of diesel, none of which is in the settees), storage, security, and seakindliness. So I made a very conscious decision to give up a modicum of speed for other things. Yes, it's a compromise. She's pure cruiser. I've done it boat ways, and I like pure cruiser better.

I do, however, think about going to something different from my huge three-blade fixed prop.

Despite having a pure cruiser, I can't tell you the number of times I'm out there and I'm the only one not motoring.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My sentiments exactly.

It's not "faulty design", however. It's a tradeoff which strongly favors performance, and assumes that there will be help nearby if you end up with a jagged hole where your rudder used to be. Not for me!

The thing about spade rudders is that it IS possible to build them very, very strong. But the fact of life is that most builders don't because it's also very expensive.

OTOH, I think the same can be said of fiberglass skeg-hung rudders.

Which brings us back to build quality and Bavaria yachts. Is the rudder on a Bavaria really the equal to a HR rudder, even if they look the same?

A few years ago, Hunter had composite rudders snapping off mid ocean without even the benefit of hitting anything. They issued a refit (sort of a recall where they changed the rudder post, perhaps back to metal). I don't see any of the high end boat manufacturors having to do something like that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

The thing about spade rudders is that it IS possible to build them very, very strong. But the fact of life is that most builders don't because it's also very expensive.

OTOH, I think the same can be said of fiberglass skeg-hung rudders.

Which brings us back to build quality and Bavaria yachts. Is the rudder on a Bavaria really the equal to a HR rudder, even if they look the same?

A few years ago, Hunter had composite rudders snapping off mid ocean even without the benefit of hitting anything. They issued a refit (sort of a recall where they changed the rudder post, perhaps back to metal). I don't see any of the high end boat manufacturors having to do something like that.

There's the old saying from car racing -- "you can have this part strong, light, or cheap -- pick any two". But how strong can you make something so inherently fragile?

The HR rudder doesn't look exactly like the Bav one. It doesn't just stick out of a hole in the bottom; it has some kind of a block or fairing or something on it. I'm sure it's better executed, but it's still not for me!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

My Wauquiez was exceptional to the windward, for a non-racing boat. This boat is not. But she's neither poor to the windward nor slow. In six knots of wind I have passed a 40' Caliber to the windward, sailing faster and pointing higher.

A Caliber is not a go-fast boat, but then neither is mine. I describe her
Despite having a pure cruiser, I can't tell you the number of times I'm out there and I'm the only one not motoring.

All this sounds like a tribute to your sailing skills and your enthusiasm, rather than to your boat's sailing qualities. And of course, the skipper is more important than the hull form or rudder type.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

All this sounds like a tribute to your sailing skills and your enthusiasm, rather than to your boat's sailing qualities. And of course, the skipper is more important than the hull form or rudder type.

No, SA/D ratio is why she can sail. I have the power.

My stick is bigger than what Ted drew for her. A short bowsprit was added to the design, so my headsails are bigger yet. And the boom is longer, so the main is bigger yet. (And mast moved forward to balance the lead.)

And full keel was changed to fin keel so draft increased from 4'8" to 6'1". Better foil for windward work and a little more stability too.

I reef a little earlier, but I can sail in the light airs that dominate here. When the wind pipes up above 20 knots, I find the staysail solves lots of problems.

One of the benefits of a one-off boat.

But I spent 12 years looking for her. OTOH, I cut my teeth sailing in Alaska. I had some very specific ideas of what I wanted. My aim is to go back again. I like remote sailing, so my needs are peculiar.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

No, SA/D ratio is why she can sail. I have the power.

My stick is bigger than what Ted drew for her. A short bowsprit was added to the design, so my headsails are bigger yet. And the boom is longer, so the main is bigger yet. (And mast moved forward to balance the lead.)

And full keel was changed to fin keel so draft increased from 4'8" to 6'1". Better foil for windward work and a little more stability too.

I reef a little earlier, but I can sail in the light airs that dominate here.

One of the benefits of a one-off boat. I spent 12 years looking for her.

Right. Well, then all the more your case is not an argument in defense of your hull form.

Your case is, however, and argument for having a boat you love and think is special. In the UK, they call Bavs, Benes and Jenns "AWB's" -- "average white boats". I'm on record for saying that Benes are good boats, but wouldn't you hate to sail something people call an "AWB"?

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm on record for saying that Benes are good boats, but wouldn't you hate to sail something people call an "AWB"?

I edited my post while you were typing.

I've never said Benys are bad boats. They are design, built, and priced for a specific market. I'm not in that market.

I started out with a 1980s era Wauquiez and moved up from there.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Right. Well, then all the more your case is not an argument in defense of your hull form.

The defense of my skeg and rudder arrangement comes from the population of rocks and logs in my area, particularly in the winter since I sail year round.

The rig is the explanation of why my hull form (and its heavy displacement) is not as slow as most assume it is.





I knew I wanted a prop encased in a skeg for my next boat the day I was motoring in an uncharted bay in Alaska with bergy bits from a nearby terminal glacier. I had my kids, 6 and 2 at the time, on board. I kept estimating how deep the ice was and whether any particular piece could catch my prop. Moments like that stay with you and affect your thinking.

In short, I don't want a boat that limits where I can cruise because it lacks the margin of safety I desire. I'm not saying you can't sail a Beny in Alaska, because I've charter and done it in a Catalina and there are many Benys out there. But I prefer a larger margin of safety than what those boats can offer. Been there, done that; and want to do it again.

[Hiracer]

P.S. I can personally attest that not all the rocks up there are to be found on the charts. Yet. Charts in some areas are sort of work in progress.

And---> as I also learned the hard way, always spend the money for the most recent charts. Don't buy used. Been there, done that; and will not do it again.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

How can you as a layman evaluate that

dave

Thank you for reminding me where I belong, God!

I might sound layman to you, but then again have you ever considered it might be something wrong with your hearing aid, God?

barnie, the sailing idiot

[barnakiel]

Yup. We have different explanations, but we seem to be talking the same thing - a new HR (Najad, Oyster, whatever) has some nice things, but do the niceties justify the price difference?

To some they do, to others, not; and as long as they buyer wants THIS and THAT, they get it.

But I do not think giving buyers what they want is the way to build better boats. I think the correct way to build a good boat is to design it well, build it well ... will there be a buyer for such a boat? Well, by changing their philosophy at least HR they seem to have answered with a big NO. But it is not the only possible answer.

I am biased because I like fast boats for racing and safe boats for cruising. The in-between I consider with my 'if something is good for everything (a cruiser-racer, ha ha ha!) then it is good for nothing.

b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

In short, I don't want a boat that limits where I can cruise because it lacks the margin of safety I desire. I'm not saying you can't sail a Beny in Alaska, because I've charter and done

Well, a perfect illustration of the principle of "horses for courses". No one ever criticized your choice! Certainly, it's right for you!

If I may say so, I wish I had your problems! It sounds like an incredible adventure!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I am biased because I like fast boats for racing and safe boats for cruising. The in-between I consider with my 'if something is good for everything (a cruiser-racer, ha ha ha!) then it is good for nothing.

b.

Hmm, well, but I doubt you would like a cruiser that was designed with no regard at all for performance, no matter how safe it is. Am I right? All the safety in the world is no good if you tack through 130 degrees and can't move in less than 10 knots of wind (by the way I had a boat like that). In that case, then you have already started compromising between safe and fast. Once you have started to compromise, then you want to try to make a good compromise.

[Sail IC]

There is a sad story currently being discussed at Swedish cruising forums. A retired person used his savings and bought a new HR 37. When adding a hullthrough, the material that came out seperated in two. When the hull was further surveyed by ultrasound and drillinging additional holes it showed major delaimination throughout. The boat was not built by hand layup as advertised but partly using polyester sprayguns.

There is a presentation (in Swedish) outlining all the problems with the boat. http://www.blekingenaturfoto.se/bat/...esentation.pdf

Three independent surveyers has deemed the boat not seaworthy.

HR refuses to acknowledge any of the problems and the case is now in Swedish court.