Fontaine pajot versus robertson caine

[Bsimon]

I have been looking at both mfg's and without actually seeing them side by side can not distinguish the better quality. Fontaine seems to be more bang for the buck .is it because they have manufactured more of them or is Robertson Caine a better boat also I have searched for any threads related but no luck yet. Any insight would be appreciated

[Factor]

Its a slightly flawed question, not all FPs or RCs are created equal, for example, one line of FPs had a significant osmosis problem where as many others didn't, MM designed RCs are an significantly different boat to their predecessors.

[gene80]

Originally Posted by Factor

MM designed RCs are an significantly different boat to their predecessors.

In a good or bad way? I've heard both sides but it's always good to hear other opinions.

Gene

[Cotemar]

Robertson Caine has balsa core above and below the water line and are heavy and have low bridge decks. Are a bit slower than the FP, because of the extra weight.

Fountaine Pajot are foam core above the water line and solid fiber glass below the water line. They are much lighter so they tend to sail better and faster.

Both will take you around the world, so take the one that fits your needs.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by gene80

In a good or bad way? I've heard both sides but it's always good to hear other opinions.

Gene

Good - mainly, better bridge deck clearance for example. Bad in some ways on some models, much more windage and noisy stepped hulls. But overall an M&M R&C 40 is a pretty good boat I would think, what do you think, given you have one?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Robertson Caine has balsa core above and below the water line and are heavy and have low bridge decks. Are a bit slower than the FP, because of the extra weight.

Fountaine Pajot are foam core above the water line and solid fiber glass below the water line. They are much lighter so they tend to sail better and faster.

Both will take you around the world, so take the one that fits your needs.

I am trying to work out how a balsa core boat is heavier than a foam core/solid glass boat.

The latter Morelli and Melvin R&Cs have quite good clearance.

[downunder]

Not in disagreement with the boats being discussed but foam is lighter than balsa and balsa lighter than solid glass.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by Factor

I am trying to work out how a balsa core boat is heavier than a foam core/solid glass boat.

The latter Morelli and Melvin R&Cs have quite good clearance.

I interpreted Cotemar's comments on the shortcomings of these boats as SEPARATE facts.

Many R & C models ARE quite heavy for their size. They DO have balsa cores above and below the waterline. Early (Simonis) designs DID have relatively low bridgedeck clearance.

There is no direct connection between the vessel weight and the balsa core. Balsa cored hulls are often lighter than foam equivalents. In the case of R&C boats, the balsa is covered with a thick layer of polyester fibreglass. This seems to provide a good, durable protective skin over the vulnerable core, but in this case there is a weight penalty. R&C's are heavy for a variety of other reasons as well. eg. fibreglass hardtop, ply carcass furniture, general fitout, etc

[Katiusha]

Just an fyi that there is a rumour out that when R&C moved their factory from South Africa to China, they ended up with 32 extensive claims on the boats that were manufactured in China. They have since moved the factory back to South Africa.

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by Katiusha

Just an fyi that there is a rumour out that when R&C moved their factory from South Africa to China, they ended up with 32 extensive claims on the boats that were manufactured in China. They have since moved the factory back to South Africa.

When were they in China and what boats did they make there?

[gene80]

Someone else can give more specifics but I believe they only have a few of the older 38's built in China.

[ausaviator]

For those that think Balsa is a good thing, take a look at this. It's not an R&C but the same applies!

Week #27

[downunder]

Originally Posted by ausaviator

For those that think Balsa is a good thing, take a look at this. It's not an R&C but the same applies!

Week #27

Good example of how not to use balsa (poor build techniques) not necessarily that balsa is bad.

[svrevelations]

Originally Posted by downunder

Not in disagreement with the boats being discussed but foam is lighter than balsa and balsa lighter than solid glass.

My boat is build with Baltek SP75 (75 kg per cubic meter) balsa which is lighter than the foam equivalent. We used epoxy and not fiberglass, the boat is much stiffer than foam and because of all this, the architect could specify thinner skins. The net result is a total weight saving of almost 700 kilogram. Unfortunately, Baltek stopped supplying SP75 balsa - currently the lightest available balsa is DIAB 90 Kg per cubic meter.

Originally Posted by ausaviator

For those that think Balsa is a good thing, take a look at this. It's not an R&C but the same applies! Week #27

Bad building techniques is a proven way to destroy balsa. My boat is currently out of the water for a couple of additions and improvements. Stripping and resealing all the "below the waterline" fittings, we encountered one skin fitting hole which was not properly build and sealed against water ingress - it was exposed to seawater for the past 3 years. Surprisingly, the damage was minimal. We found that about 8 mm (1/4") of balsa was waterlogged and damaged - the balsa was perfectly dry beyond this.

Roberts & Caine
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion the latest RC boats are cattle marans ideally suited to chartering industry - not true bluewater sailing vessels.