Why Are Bavaria Yachts Not Well-Liked Here ?

[barnakiel]

BTW

What we can see in the newer HRs, Najads and Malos is (IMHO) not a chase for efficiency of the hull. After all, the hull speed is the limit here. A 42 HR will not sail faster than a 42 Bavaria.

I think, at a point somewhere in the late 90'ties someone at HR made a decision to build MORE boats rather than BETTER boats. They looked at Bavarias success and practically imitated rather than stick to their niche.

IMHO that was a grave mistake. Because once the boats LOOK identical, the buyer will ask "why should I pay more for an identical boat, only that it was made in Sweden?".

And BTW what fails in Bavarias most seems to be the rig (!!!), which is from Selden, which is from Sweden ... I believe part of the problem is the Bavaria designers writing rig specs for the weekend use, not for extended, repeated offshore voyaging. Even in continuous charter use this rig does not seem to stand up very well.

All this said, I think Bavarias (along with a couple of other major players) are great weekend/charter boats, if ugly like hell. We do not buy a Fiat Punto and ask it to take us around the world either, do we. Most seasoned adventurers would ask for a Land Rover or something.

b.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Ahhh that explains it, HR, Najad and Malo are designed for people with poor seamanship and navigation skills. The Volvo drivers of the seas

Being in Stockholm you probably know (close up and personal perhaps) the stones of the archipelago ;-)))

b.

[goboatingnow]

As you can see in all new boats from any of the three boatyards their underbodies are as efficient as safety reasons allow.

How can you as a layman evaluate that

dave

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Being in Stockholm you probably know (close up and personal perhaps) the stones of the archipelago ;-)))

b.

My friend who has a wakeboarding boat is onto his 3rd prop

We used to take it into the city "navigating" by road map.

When I got my Searay with a GPS map by the helm I got to see how many things there are to hit if you are stupid enough to navigate the waters blind.

I have not been on his boat since

I did find the spot where he had broken one of his props. The rock was marked on the map and has subsequently had a marker bouy added.

[goboatingnow]

And BTW what fails in Bavarias most seems to be the rig (!!!), which is from Selden, which is from Sweden ... I believe part of the problem is the Bavaria designers writing rig specs for the weekend use, not for extended, repeated offshore voyaging. Even in continuous charter use this rig does not seem to stand up very well.

Wheres the experience of that, I have spoken to charter managers , thats was never a feature of Bavarias, Anyway its Selden that specifiy the standing rigging , this is so as to maintain the warranty.

I think, at a point somewhere in the late 90'ties someone at HR made a decision to build MORE boats rather than BETTER boats. They looked at Bavarias success and practically imitated rather than stick to their niche.

No they didnt , I actually got to ask people in HR in orust re that decision. The fact is that spade rudder and fin keels are proven to be hydrodynamically the best option. Hence while the boats top spped will not be faster it is certainly more efficient , faster in light airs and accerlates better, ie it sails better.

Secondly the improvements in material, finite stress analysis has shown that previous solutions such as skegs or partial skegs add very little if any ( a designer commented to me that many skegs are held on by the rudder) strength, hence teh move to these designs,

Lastly marketing feedback showed HR that they were considered "old peoples boats", and that younger sailors, acustomed to fast boats or those that came from dinghies expected the modern underbody. IT has nothing to do with volume, in fact in recent times HR has reduced production volume.

Its the same reason Najad ditched the old underbody designs too.

All this said, I think Bavarias (along with a couple of other major players) are great weekend/charter boats, if ugly like hell. We do not buy a Fiat Punto and ask it to take us around the world either, do we. Most seasoned adventurers would ask for a Land Rover or something.

I would put it another way , teh people that buy HRs are exactly the same people that buy Range Rovers, They "beleive" teh marketing hype, they want to "feel " superior etc, Underneath the cars about as reliable as a 80's Fiat Punto. ( I know i own one).

HR and others occupy a marketing niche that panders to well healed "status" concious buyers, its really got nothing to do with the underlying engineering. "status" buyer of course like Range Rover drivers soend most of their time "justifying" their very expensive purchase in "quality " terms, yet very few of them can judge the engineering quality.

What they do see if finely stiched leather etc or in HRs case beautiful finished cabinets etc. But cabinet joinerly does not a sailing boat make, no more then lots of cows dying makes a good car.

Its a marketing strategy thats all.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

BTW

What we can see in the newer HRs, Najads and Malos is (IMHO) not a chase for efficiency of the hull. After all, the hull speed is the limit here. A 42 HR will not sail faster than a 42 Bavaria..

Well, not really. Not upwind and not in light winds. Hull speed is definitely not the limit to pointing ability.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

We do not buy a Fiat Punto and ask it to take us around the world either, do we. Most seasoned adventurers would ask for a Land Rover or something.

Well, this is not really important to the discussion, but as the owner of two Land Rover vehicles I can say that these are definitely not what I would choose for an adventure. One is best advised to stay within one hour's distance from a Land Rover service centre!


More seriously: Sweden is not the only place with rocks, and not only poor seamen need strong boats. The outer skin of the hull of my boat is made of Kevlar back to the keel, and the lead/antinomy keel is of massive construction. Her rudder is on a massive half-skeg (I would prefer a full skeg as Oyster do it, however). I wouldn't want it to be less strong than that. This is not (entirely) incompatible with modern underbody giving good pointing ability and speed. Where a boat like this loses out to a hot Beneteau (especially something like, say a Bene First) is that you can't increase the aspect ratio of a fin keel beyond a certain point before you start to lose strength. And a spade rudder certainly performs better than a skeg-hung one. You can take risks like that coastal places where help is nearby (including the Stockholm Archipelago, actually) but I would not like to be limited to cruising in such places so would not prefer such a boat.

I don't really "get" the rudder on the HR which Barnie put up -- it's not a spade, but neither does it have any skeg. I wonder what Frers had in mind with that?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Secondly the improvements in material, finite stress analysis has shown that previous solutions such as skegs or partial skegs add very little if any ( a designer commented to me that many skegs are held on by the rudder) strength, hence teh move to these designs,

If this is true, I would like to know the source so that I can re-program my own mind.

I don't see how a spade rudder can be nearly as strong as a skeg-hung one. You have a much wider space between the rudder bearings when you have a skeg to put them in. This obviously reduces the bending moment and makes the whole construction not only stronger but more rigid. I just don't see how this is not much better structurally.

If some designers build skegs so weak that they are held up by the rudders, then that is a flaw in implementation, not in design. The skeg of my own boat is of massive construction, with a solid bronze shoe at the bottom of it, and integral to the boat's structure.

That a true spade is hydrodynamically superior -- far superior -- to other types of rudder is beyond dispute. All wings are more efficient with less drag and more aspect ratio. No question there. I would just hate to back into the ballast of a quay in a spade rudder boat -- can you imagine the consequences??!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I would put it another way , teh people that buy HRs are exactly the same people that buy Range Rovers, They "beleive" teh marketing hype, they want to "feel " superior etc, Underneath the cars about as reliable as a 80's Fiat Punto. ( I know i own one).

HR and others occupy a marketing niche that panders to well healed "status" concious buyers, its really got nothing to do with the underlying engineering. "status" buyer of course like Range Rover drivers soend most of their time "justifying" their very expensive purchase in "quality " terms, yet very few of them can judge the engineering quality.

Oh, boy. I don't even know where to start with these stereotypes.

First of all: My name is John, and I am an alcoholic, err, a Range Rover driver. I confess! But I am a quite sophisticated user of automobiles having worked on them in my youth, raced a bit, and having spent decades behind the wheels of various Porsches (still own a special 2.2 litre 911S), not the victim of fashion-consciousness or slick marketing by a long shot. I have no illusions about the engineering -- although the vehicle most mostly designed by BMW and has many BMW components, the engineering is pure, unadulterated cr*p. A Range Rover is far less reliable than a Fiat Punto, you were giving it too much credit. I am far beyond that stage in life where I care about what anyone thinks about what car I drive, so status is also not part of it. So if neither for engineering quality or for prestige, why do I drive it? Simply because it gives me pleasure, and because I can afford the price in inconvenience and repair costs, which that pleasure demands. It is the right kind of car to drive in the extremely harsh climate where I live, it has formidable performance off road and in harsh conditions, it feels and sounds good, and it is a pleasure sitting in it. I have other cars so I can afford to have it in the shop often (and I have had four or five major breakdowns in only 80,000 km of use). A Toyota Land Cruiser is a far superior vehicle, objectively. But gives me exactly zero pleasure; it has the soul of a washing machine; I wouldn't have one.


Now a high class boat like an HR, Oyster, Discovery, etc. -- if you think that's just slick marketing covering up something which is essentially no better than a Bavaria -- all I can say is that you've never been on one. There is a world of difference. Whereas a Range Rover doesn't represent any real quality, being produced with the same (shoddy) mass production methods as any Ford, that does not apply at all to the aforementioned boats. An HR represents probably ten times the man-hours of labor as the equivalent Bav, and it shows in every detail. Is it worth it? No, not rationally. But for some people nothing else will do.

[goboatingnow]

What the designer ( it was in HR in orust and I cant remember his name) said that there is a trend towards small skegs to improve the efficiency of the rudder and its difficult to build such skegs strong ( as in strong enough to make a difference), in fact he alluded to the fatc that these small skegs could be broken out of the canoe body in an impact. Also he was refering to the trend of full skegs that were very vertical in aspect. I presume older large skegs didnt suffer this.

As to material analysis, he claimed that more is understood now about GRP and computer stress models are more reliable and accruate and that exotic materials have changed the game plan.( in addition the trend towards resin infusion production has also improved things) Hence thicker , bigger etc isnt neccessarily stronger.

The challenge for low volume makers like HR and others is to be able to incorporate modern production techniques and get their advantages , but to limit the huge investments costs that such systems require, Beneteau et all can afford the enormous inital capital needed , HR cannot.


It was a very interesting visit to Hr factory, The designer was just there by coincidence. BTW I attended a talk by Ron Holland , who said much the same thing, that essentially the move away from full keels was unstoppable ( to shorten a very long talk).

Dave

[goboatingnow]

An HR represents probably ten times the man-hours of labor as the equivalent Bav, and it shows in every detail. Is it worth it? No, not rationally. But for some people nothing else will do.

Dockhead, I have delivered a fair number of new or nearly new HRs and Malos for owners and I can say the average owner fits the Range Rover profile. ie its bought on style rather then substance, Very few do the engineering evaluations as to whats actually better.

I am not for a minute running down HR, yes the labours extensive, and if you visit the factory you will see why , few automated lines ( except for paint spraying and drying, most of the furniture is hand assembled ( though a lot is automated cutting and more modular then I expected).
For example the teak deck is lovingly hand fixed with a guy using an upturned jigsaw in his hand to free cut the frets lovely stuff but slow as hell. ( and at swedish labour rates) then he individually drills each piece and screws in the plank into the deck ( on a bed of sealant). Its nice but I dont like all thoese screws( they also use different methods on differnt size boats). beneteau on the other hand laser cut the panels in mass quantites and just glue the whole thing down. Yes its not as good, but it works and there're no leaks.

Equally I saw all the cabinet makers put together the beautiful cabinets, whereas Beneteau has huge machines doing the cutting lacuring etc.

BUT and this is the but, the underlying engineering, the thing that makes the boat go and stay going is similar in both boats, Thats why I use the RR and Punto analysis and youve confirmed that view, Both say HR and Beneteau will get the job done, one wearing a smoking jacket the other in a hoody.

Thats the point of this whole agrument, a HR will get you around in style and comfort a Beneteau will get you around.


I have a RR, freelander and a 1997 Fiat Punto sitting in my drive, I know what Id take to go round the world in....
dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

What the designer ( it was in HR in orust and I cant remember his name) said that there is a trend towards small skegs to improve the efficiency of the rudder and its difficult to build such skegs strong ( as in strong enough to make a difference), in fact he alluded to the fatc that these small skegs could be broken out of the canoe body in an impact. Also he was refering to the trend of full skegs that were very vertical in aspect. I presume older large skegs didnt suffer this.

As to material analysis, he claimed that more is understood now about GRP and computer stress models are more reliable and accruate and that exotic materials have changed the game plan.( in addition the trend towards resin infusion production has also improved things) Hence thicker , bigger etc isnt neccessarily stronger.

The challenge for low volume makers like HR and others is to be able to incorporate modern production techniques and get their advantages , but to limit the huge investments costs that such systems require, Beneteau et all can afford the enormous inital capital needed , HR cannot.


It was a very interesting visit to Hr factory, The designer was just there by coincidence. BTW I attended a talk by Ron Holland , who said much the same thing, that essentially the move away from full keels was unstoppable ( to shorten a very long talk).

Dave

If there is a structural reason why a spade rudder can be a strong as a similarly built skeg-hung one, I'd like to know it. I can't think of any way that could be possible. Here is my rudder:



It is by no means the strongest possible design; the Oyster rudders are much better. But look at the widely spaced points (both fore and aft, and up and down) of loading. The skeg and its fairing spread the load of impact over a very long distance of the hull. There is no ****** way that this same load from hitting a rock could be carried equally well at a single point -- at the lower of two rudder bearings. No way.

I think what the HR guy was saying was simply that they understand the materials well enough that they believe that they can afford to go out on a longer limb structurally. The problem is that it is a much longer limb. I don't like it.

Incidentally, you didn't mention another reason why spade rudders are better -- they are balanced. They have control surface area ahead of and not just behind the axis of steering, so you are not fighting the whole force of the stream of water when you steer.

My rudder is partially balanced -- it's got some surface area below the skeg and ahead of the steering axis. I would still prefer an Oyster-type full skeg, however.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry , have you ever tried steming a leak from the inside, Hit a submerged container hard and it doesnt matter what you have stick or hull liner.

Ive been on "stick built " boats that had terrible hull access, as they had cedar panelling everywhere insode the lockers.

In reality very very few people need access to the hulls, its a rare situation. Equally there are Hull liners and there are hull liners.

Yes, I have stopped a leak in a sinking boat. It was a religious experience, and has something to do with my perspective.

I'm sure there are some stick built boats that offer poor hull access and I would recommend avoiding them. However, lined hulls always offer far worse access compared to a properly built stick boat.

I have read of a number of sinkings because crew could not access the leak from a hull lined interior. It's never blamed directly on the liner. Usually they same something vague like we just could find the leak and then the water got too deep. When you look at the boat make, model and year, you realise why they could not find the leak.

Back when I had a 1980s era Wauquiez, that would have never happened. Wonderful access. Henri knew how to build boats. And they had seaberths too.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If there is a structural reason why a spade rudder can be a strong as a similarly built skeg-hung one, I'd like to know it. I can't think of any way that could be possible. Here is my rudder:

Attachment 20038

It is by no means the strongest possible design; the Oyster rudders are much better. But look at the widely spaced points (both fore and aft, and up and down) of loading. The skeg and its fairing spread the load of impact over a very long distance of the hull. There is no ****** way that this same load from hitting a rock could be carried equally well at a single point -- at the lower of two rudder bearings. No way.

I think what the HR guy was saying was simply that they understand the materials well enough that they believe that they can afford to go out on a longer limb structurally. The problem is that it is a much longer limb. I don't like it.

Incidentally, you didn't mention another reason why spade rudders are better -- they are balanced. They have control surface area ahead of and not just behind the axis of steering, so you are not fighting the whole force of the stream of water when you steer.

My rudder is partially balanced -- it's got some surface area below the skeg and ahead of the steering axis. I would still prefer an Oyster-type full skeg, however.

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.

[Hiracer]

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.

Think steel skeg-hung rudder with prop encased in the skeg. She will not like reverse, but I have motored over a three-foot diameter submerged tree with no damage to rudder, prop shaft, or prop.

Finding trees like that is not unusual in my area. Try that with a plastic spade rudder and see what happens.

In Maine, I understand it's lobster traps.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Think steel skeg-hung rudder with prop encased in the skeg. She will not like reverse, but I have motored over a three-foot diameter submerged tree with no damage to rudder, prop shaft, or prop.

Finding trees like that is not unusual in my area. Try that with a plastic spade rudder and see what happens.

In Maine, I understand it's lobster traps.

Well, it's always a compromise of some kind or another, isn't it? That kind of setup will not only not reverse, it will not go to windward very well and will be slow. 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.