Why Are Bavaria Yachts Not Well-Liked Here ?

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

A quite uniformed journey I suspect.

At best pointless and undignified, quite plausibly denigrating and dishonourable. I understand why someone felt it necessary to start a "rudeness" thread here.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No you'll feel much safer with a crew thats knows what they are doing then any particular type of boat, beleive me I know.

Obviously his statement is based on all other things being equal, not with inexperienced crew on one hand and old salts on the other. Why be so inflammatory?

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Nobody thats has spent that amount of money for a small boat will want to be convinced they're that dumb. Theres no so blind as thoses that cannot see...
Dave

....or those who choose not to see.

Amen to that, brother. Amen.

Blair

[wryanddry]

Dockhead, glad you enjoyed the post, it was too long winded for some. I will try to continue to contribute whenever I have something of value to add, however my first post was the culmination of 3 years so I have "shot my bolt" for now.

goboatingnow,
Yes an absolutely uninformed journey, we definitely didn't know it all before we embarked on our learning endeavour, hopefully we will be able to select the right boat for our odyssey based on the feedback from people who contribute to forums like this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I do not think HR builders will agree with you.

I do not think HR owners will agree with you.

Even I do not agree with you.

But you made me smile.

;-)
b.

Well, a Bene 46 costs $240,000 according to Cruising World. An Oyster 46 costs $1,500,000 according to the same source.

Is the Oyster six times the boat as the Bene?

Is the Oyster a good value for the money?

Why the great difference in cost?

Do Oyster make a 500% markup -- is it all just profit?

The last question is the key. Oyster are less profitable than Beneteau (like most high end boatmakers they have been bust a couple of times). Oysters are enormously expensive to make because old-fashioned labor-intensive methods are used. Materials are better, as is much of the equipment, and a lot more fiberglass is involved -- the Oyster weights 1.5x the Bene. But the rig is almost the same -- all Selden and Lewmar stuff. The propulsion gear is exactly the same -- Yanmar.

Most of the 6x difference in cost is down to efficiency of production. So I think pretty obviously the Oyster is not a good value for the money, compared to the Bene.

But for some people nothing else will do, and that's who Oyster (and other high end boat yards) cater to.

A yacht of course is a love-object and not an appliance and so many people are willing to spend an unreasonable amount of money on them. I'm not criticizing such people; I am one of them! I very badly wanted to buy an Oyster myself and almost did so (had a deposit down and contract signed). Ended up buying something not quite as nice as that, but far more expensive than a production boat. Did I get good value for my money? Nope! But that was not the goal!

Another point is the intended use of the boat. Bene and the other high volume producers build almost nothing but racers, and coastal cruisers. That's where the demand is. So if you insist on having a boat which is specifically designed for long ocean passages, then you don't really have any choice but to go to one of the higher end makers. Demand for that type of boat is too small, to make it worthwhile for Bene and others to make it.

[meyermm]

Well written and did get to the point which many have tried to say including myself horses for courses. For myself I will never have and would not spend that kind of money $1.5m on a yacht. So it is either going to be a very old Oyster or a plastic fantastic which is where I am leaning.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, a Bene 46 costs $240,000 according to Cruising World. An Oyster 46 costs $1,500,000 according to the same source.

Why the great difference in cost?

(...)

Well, according to Yachtworld search the difference is roughly 100% (300+ vs. 700+). Roughly, but NOT the 1.500.000 vs. 240.000 you quote.

BTW I was talking HR and the thread is on Bavaria.

And as far as quality in boat building is talked then:

Yes - I have sailed Bavarias, and
Yes - I have sailed HRs, and
Yes - I would gladly pay the extra money for a HR, if I had it.

The point is most people don't.

And I would go in a HR to parts of the world that I would not dare to dream of sailing in a Bavaria.

barnie

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Well, according to Yachtworld search the difference is roughly 100% (300+ vs. 700+). Roughly, but NOT the 1.500.000 vs. 240.000 you quote.

BTW I was talking HR and the thread is on Bavaria.

And as far as quality in boat building is talked then:

Yes - I have sailed Bavarias, and
Yes - I have sailed HRs, and
Yes - I would gladly pay the extra money for a HR, if I had it.

The point is most people don't.

And I would go in a HR to parts of the world that I would not dare to dream of sailing in a Bavaria.

barnie

Those were new prices. Oysters and HRs depreciate a lot faster than Bavs and Benes, so the prices do converge somewhat. But like for like condition and year I would be surprised if you could get an Oyster 46 for as little as double the same year and condition Bav.

I love HR's but the Enderlein ones are slow. I am lucky to have been able to afford a non-production boat, but if I had to buy a Bene I would probably not enjoy it significantly less, and I would sail it anywhere I sail my Moody (no plans for the Southern Ocean so far). I say Bene and not Bav because I think they are better designed and made for similar money.

If I were going to some extremely harsh place like the Southern Ocean even an HR wouldn't really make me comfortable. For that one would be better off in a heavy metal boat designed for the purpose. For ordinary long distance stuff like crossing the Atlantic -- well people do it in Benes all the time. Get the tankage sorted somehow and I would do it without hesitation, although obviously I would prefer my own boat if given the choice.

I am actually thinking about Orkneys and Iceland next summer so I might end up eating some of these words. Stay tuned.

[barnakiel]

I do not care if the older HRs are slow or not because if a boat is too slow you simply get the bigger one (we are talking HR, so money no object, right?). Then again what is slow? How much safety do you get from a boat sailing 9 vs. one sailing 7 knots - 50 miles a day difference.

I would agree that a fast boat can be safer. But to be fast we forget HRs or Oysters and we go for a Pogo 40, Cigala 14 and the likes. Then you will sail 15 knots+ and get extra 200 miles vs. the 'slow' boat - enough to get to the safer side of a tropical depression in time. BTW both are cheaper than HR or Oyster. How strange so few of those TALK of going FAST sail such boats.

The older HRs may be slow but they are also safer - especially in the Scandinavian context where one touches a rock more than once in their life. You can do it more than once in the older HR but I am not sure about the new FASTER ones. And also because they are FASTER.

I have sailed probably most of the mass production boats (OK - I have sailed Bavas, Benes, Jeanneaus, Dehlers, Hanse, Hunter, i.a.) and I did not notice any difference in design nor in execution. There are better or worse models in each make and I think they are all great for weekend sailing and some of them are good enough for longer trips, especially when big and new.

So, I say Bavarias are great. And meanwhile I will stick to my human designed, hand-made, long keel hull designed and built in Sweden.

b.

[goboatingnow]

Brob2 I have no wish to sustain an argument with you

My point of saying its was an "uniformed journey" was in response to the posters "jouney of deciding after whats seems a tour of the boat shows, that you are " safer in "stick built " HR then say a good Beneteau. I am not being antagonistic, I do get tired of this constant nonsense, that seems to mainly eminate from US forums, constanly running down production boats, usually based on very little experience of them ( often a charter or whatever).

Equally I was not beeing inflamatory in making my good crew bad crew comment , I have said elsewhere and repeatidly that the experience you get has a huge amount to do with the crew ability , especially in bad weather, Anybody can sail, its when the chips are down that the experience shows.

The fact is walking around boat shows listening to sales patter is not a good way to judge the acceptability of boats.

I have sailed a fair few types of boats ( I did deliveries) and I share John Ketrschmer views on this and in my expeience his is similar to alot of delivery skippers, most of which by the nature of their job have been through more bad weather in a year then most cruisers see in a lifetime.

Again , at no time was I trying to be inflamatory, I feel this constant "tell me whats best" boats stuff from sailing novices to be somewhat ridiculous. Its like asking a roomful of sailors if they like their own boat.

The fact is, even the OP himself states the typical usuage patterns of a "blue water cruisers" most of the time you are stoped either in a marina or most likely on the hook. Hence the boat has to fullfill that citeria best. Then it need to be easily handled by the intended crew, then in my view it should be fast. Seaworthiness is such a difficult concept to define and more importantly test and verify. ( if you used all these SA/D, AVS, etc numbers nonsense, noone would ever sail OVNIs)

The plain fact is the OP is not " safer" in a HR then a Beneteau, he may "feel" safer, both boats can get him into huge trouble if he doesnt know what hes doing. There are lots of cases where the Beneteau will outpeform the HR ( especially the old HRs) and in that case you can be safer, equally there are many situations where the HR is better then the Beneteau.

I have had the advantage of seeing HR's built and also Beneteaus ( and Jeanneaus not Bavarias). In my view The HR is a much finer finished boat, HR do customisations and special addiitons etc that Bene will never do. Equally the tiny volumes of HR compared to Beneteau and Jeanneau ( since they are the same) means that Beneteau can offer top quality for a lot less ( witness all Harken gear on Beneteau performance pack). But none of this neccessarilty contributes to a safer HR. ( a nicer one certainly)

As i said in relation to teh OPs question, any of these boats, well maintained and carefully managed will take the OP where he wants.

This issue is not about "better" its more about asthetics. What does get up my nose, it that high priced boat owners, try and tell you their boat are "better, safer" etc almost as a mantra to try and justify the money they paid, no more then BMW or ( Bently )owners say the same. when in fact they dont know how much actually went into the boat and how much was merely inflated production costs, larger dealer discounts and marketing spin. No more then people telling me Volvos are "safer" then Citreons more nonsense. it just shows you how one track Volvos marketing is, they have to market that angle as the cars are no better then most ordinary cheaper cars ( look at the base platforms used).


It would be different if we have lots of sinking data to justify one or the other position , but the facts are the opposite, Benes etc arent sinking.

Nor is this a "blue water " versus "coastal" argument. In my experience the roughest nasiest weather Ive experienced was close to coasts and for that matter it was in the Med, teh home of so called "coastal" cruisers. ( and this isnt just my experience either). Hence the implicit assumotion that "coastal Cruisers" must somehow be less safe then "Bluewater " ones is nonsense.

Bluewater cruisers are more to do with tankage etc, all of which can be fixed on a bene/jeanny or Bav. In fact I sailed the old Bavaria "Ocean" range, not a bad sea boat. Yes the insides are mass produced and IKea like ( just like my kitchen) but they do the job, its not a contributor to "Safe". Also I have sailed older HR's and the "stick built" teak inside squealed so much you couldnt carry on a conversation, wheras there wasnt a sound in a Jeanneau.

And in all cases your "safety" was in the hands of the same Yanmar or Selden or Harken equiopment.


Again this is a "beauty" argument not a safety one.

These threads are worse then guns threads

Dave

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

These threads are worse then guns threads

Dave

Yes, but not as bad as the long keel versus modified fin threads!

Thanks for your post Dave.

I notice an interesting similarity between this forum and another I belong to, a well established triathlon forum. There is a group of very knowledgeable and experienced triathletes who are the core of the forum, but a good portion of the posts everyday are new(ish) members saying they are new to the sport, but 'can I do an ironman in 3 months?', or 'what is the best bike for me to get, I am doing a race in a month?', and 'what is the best wetsuit to get for my first race next month?'

Well, if you haven't learned how to swim well and trained hard enough, you are either going to drown, or require rescue by the guards, regardless of whether you have the $600 wetsuit or the $150 one. It's so analogous to the 'what boat to buy, I'm new to sailing and looking to sail around the world next year' question it's not funny. Either instance seems to bring up visions of an on water rescue or worse.

There is a new post like that every week it seems and the thought of a newbie sailing the Pacific (or the Bay of Biscay) safely 12 months from now seems ridiculous irrespective of the build quality of the boat one might recommend for such a person.

Some members of the forum answer the 'which boat' question directly, others such as yourself focus on the skill requirement. To me the answer is- why don't you try learning and sailing first before you make such a commitment? Buy your dream boat after you are sure that is the dream and then fit it out.
Stating such however will reduce the number of lightly used and well equipped recent build Najads, Malos, and Jeanneaus, etc., that are available at great prices for those of us that love sailing. Therefore, in the future, let us just recommend boats that we might want for ourselves 1-2 years down the road. Hereafter I am going to suggest Najad 440 AC's with carbon spars.

[goboatingnow]

Hadn't thought of that angle

Hey newbies suggest you all buy amel then get bored and sell them on cheap to us !!!

Dave

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

There is simply no body of evidence that says a Hull/liner is any worse or better then a "stick built " boat. Hull/liner systems exist ( to a lesser or larger) in "quality " production boat

Hull/liner construction is a problem if you are in the middle of an ocean, hit a submerged container, and need to access the hull from the interior to effect a hull repair or stop a leak. So called stick built almost always offers better access to the hull.

Access to the hull is the primary reason to favor stick built construction, even admitting they are both equally strong.

Some of us ask the question, if I hole my hull can I stop the leak before the boat sinks? That is not an issue of strength but rather access.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Brob2

There is a new post like that every week it seems and the thought of a newbie sailing the Pacific (or the Bay of Biscay) safely 12 months from now seems ridiculous irrespective of the build quality of the boat one might recommend for such a person.

It becomes rather predictable, doesn't it? "I'm going to begin my circumnavigation next summer, and I've already signed up for a Basic Keelboat course. Can someone tell me what brand of boat I should buy? I've got $20,000 saved up, by the way, so it needs to be a Bluewater cruiser. I've heard that production boats all lose their keels when they get beyond sight of land."

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Brob2

(... ) To me the answer is - why don't you try learning and sailing first before you make such a commitment? (...)

(...) Therefore, in the future, let us just recommend boats that we might want for ourselves 1-2 years down the road.(...)

What's wrong with hands-on attitude to learning? What is the 'such a commitment' part all about? People get boats and go sailing. Anywhere from Lake Huron to the Southern Ocean. It was 'a commitment' in Slocum's times perhaps. Today it is an activity like any other. I have sailed to places and cannot remember any special skills nor magic I needed or lacked, rather plenty of common sense and a little help from my fiend, the GPS. And I was not the only one around who 'just did it'.

Therefore, in the future, let us just stick to everyone posting what they think contributes to the discussion and addresses the OP's questions or statements. It has been like this on this forum for a good moment now and why should this change.

barnie

[Hiracer]

The best blue water boats commit a lot of interior space to storage. Many of the coastal cruiser/charter boats don't.

Storage, tankage, and ground tackle arrangements are important differences between coastal and blue water boats. Have you ever heard of a blue water sailor complain that his/her boat had too much storage or tankage?

Seaberths is another hallmark. I've seen some recent production boats that had none. Zilch. Because sleeping is what marinas are for.

[meyermm]

"I've heard that production boats all lose their keels when they get beyond sight of land." Loved it along with "Cats do not sink" another vof my favourites