The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

No, my boat was in PW when they passed through but I was elswhere... they described her ( and a very serious old french boat 'expedition boat' astern of mine ) as 'semi-derelict' in their blog.

Heh-heh. Now THAT'S funny.

Did you see their boat though? Good lord - they kept it spotless!! Not even dirty underwear and socks in the galley sink!

And how in the hell do you carry that much fine wine????? Who says Hunters don't have enough storage?

They would think my boat was derelict too - even though, to me, it's spotless.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

..The new definition coming into force in 2016 will define the boats ability to deal with certain sea states, as opposed to suggesting that they are suitable for longer (blue water) off shore passages.

At least that had the positive effect o making me laugh the new definition on the RCD boat classes that has as only objective to be more clear to the public what the boats are up to....will wait 2 years before they will tell to the consumers: look, this is the better definition for what the boats really are now but we will only make it public in two years

They have been all over on the European sail magazines. Definitions don't have to be implemented by states, they are just definitions, meaning what they are talking about.
...

Originally Posted by avb3

As far as the Delphi is concerned, I looked at their website. They have some interesting looking boats, ones that are not well known in the NA market. Looks like Ikea type interiors are ubiquitous in most newer boats, unfortunately. I like their 'truth in advertising', as example, their Delphi 29 is rated 'A6". Their marketing says though:

• This compact cruiser, Delphia 29 is designed specifically to provide maximum performance for inshore voyages and cruising inland waterways whilst combining superlative nautical properties with roominess and safety.

Wouldn't it be nice if all manufacturers did this? It emphasizes the point I was trying make that the rating does not equal what it should be used for.

It looks like Delphia, as most builders now, does use a liner. Can you comment on their construction details at all if you are aware of them? What about the interiors; are they real wood (their website suggests it may be as they talk about their joinery department), or are they laminates?

Delphia make solid boats, one of them a 40ft circumnavigated recently almost non stop . They have about the same quality of Bavarias, Jeanneaus or Hanse. All of them have similar stability characteristics.

If you want my opinion regarding that Delphia 29 being Class A that I think that the RCD needs a revision in what regards the minimums for Aclass, or an inspection to see what is going on. It makes no sense that a boat like the Delphia 29 would be able to pass class A certification.

Regarding that size I believe that only boats with exceptional stability characteristics like the Pogo 30 (believe me I know what I am talking about), the Dehler 29, or the Halberg Rassy 31 should be able to pass. Most Production cruisers with 30ft or around would stay out or would have to improve the stability. I am not the only one that think like this, many NA will agree with me.

Off course from the Delphia 33 to an Oceanis 38 goes a huge distance in what regards seaworthiness and stability. Even lesser boats would not have a problem in my book.

I don't believe the problem has to do directly with the requirements, but with the information they receive. In what regards stability curves they accept the ones the NA sends with the boat...and not all design softwares are the same, results can differ and on the case of the Delphia 29 I have many doubts. They should impose to all a stability curve generated with the boat on the water and made by an independent body.

Regarding massive wood I don't think it is the better material for boats: it is heavy, absorbs humidity. Top yachts use now composite wood with some massive wood details (or not). The problem is not using composite materials but the quality of them that varies wildly.

Futuna Yachts - marine woodwork and joinery for sail yachts

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

I can't understand what's so hard about the concept that when you buy cheap you get cheap.

Isn't this analogous to what this thread is really about?

This is another great point, and is absolutely analagous to this thread. BUT...

What does "cheap" mean? Do you realize the Bristol 47.7 is "cheap"?

Here's a quick example:

1986 Bristol 47.7 for $150K:
1986 Bristol 47.7 Center Cockpit Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 for $305K:
2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is another great point, and is absolutely analagous to this thread. BUT...

What does "cheap" mean? Do you realize the Bristol 47.7 is "cheap"?

Here's a quick example:

1986 Bristol 47.7 for $150K:
1986 Bristol 47.7 Center Cockpit Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 for $305K:
2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

If you want to make this point I suggest you compare the same year boats.
You don't get ten pound of gold in 2015 at 1986 prices!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

If you want to make this point I suggest you compare the same year boats.
You don't get ten pound of gold in 2015 at 1986 prices!

I know.

But this is what I mean that these terms being thrown around are not so straightforward.

"Different", "more efficient", "modern", "lighter", even "less expensive" - don't necessarily mean "cheap".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is another great point, and is absolutely analagous to this thread. BUT...

What does "cheap" mean? Do you realize the Bristol 47.7 is "cheap"?

Here's a quick example:

1986 Bristol 47.7 for $150K:
1986 Bristol 47.7 Center Cockpit Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 for $305K:
2015 Beneteau Oceanis 48 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Oh boy. Just when I thought we were back on track and starting to have civilized & informative discussions. Maybe this is why your threads go on & on.

Do we need to help you out by comparing what a Bristol 38.8 or 41.1 went for brand new in 1996 (last year Bristol was in business I think), vs. what a 40' Hunter went for new that same year?

There's also a mid-80's (I think) 47.7 in Mexico with a $350K asking price. This won't also confuse your concept of "cheap," will it?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's also a mid-80's (I think) 47.7 in Mexico with a $350K asking price. This won't also confuse your concept of "cheap," will it?

That's why I chose the "cheapest" new B48 I could find on YW. They go up to $430K+ in some countries.

See my post above about the term "cheap" and why it's so misleading.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I know.

But this is what I mean that these terms being thrown around are not so straightforward.

"Different", "more efficient", "modern", "lighter", even "less expensive" - don't automatically necessarily mean "cheap".

How about if we all agree that you got a good "value" with your Hunter. Feel better? Seriously, think buying tools at Harbor Freight. Great saving a few bucks on those screwdrivers & hammers, but you may want to avoid the power tools. Is that closed-minded, misperceived bias & unfair branding, or is that based on fact & reputation? Seems to me this is what this debate is about.

For example, we all know the primary purpose of using liners is to save on labor costs. Nothing wrong with making boats less expensive for consumers to buy, and more profitable for mfgs. to sell. The debate is instead about whether using liners compromises structural integrity, ease of access, serviceability, etc. We have heard evidence that the liners in Bene's are cheaper to produce than in IP's. This in part explains why IP's are probably both more expensive, and likely have a better rep for build quality. Beyond this, it's up to the consumer, but only if they know these particular facts about liners, etc. My bet is that most don't, and this is what bothers me about the "cheaper/less expensive" mass-produced boats over probably anything else.

With your ability to confuse words, are you sure you're not a lawyer? Criminal defense perhaps?

[Jim Cate]

Delphia make solid boats, one of them a 40ft circumnavigated recently almost non stop . They have about the same quality of Bavarias, Jeanneaus or Hanse. All of them have similar stability characteristics.

If you want my opinion regarding that Delphia 29 being Class A that I think that the RCD needs a revision in what regards the minimums for Aclass, or an inspection to see what is going on. It makes no sense that a boat like the Delphia 29 would be able to pass class A certification.

Regarding that size I believe that only boats with exceptional stability characteristics like the Pogo 30 (believe me I know what I am talking about), the Dehler 29, or the Halberg Rassy 31 should be able to pass. Most Production cruisers with 30ft or around would stay out or would have to improve the stability. I am not the only one that think like this, many NA will agree with me.

Off course from the Delphia 33 to an Oceanis 38 goes a huge distance in what regards seaworthiness and stability. Even lesser boats would not have a problem in my book.

I don't believe the problem has to do directly with the requirements, but with the information they receive. In what regards stability curves they accept the ones the NA sends with the boat...and not all design softwares are the same, results can differ and on the case of the Delphia 29 I have many doubts. They should impose to all a stability curve generated with the boat on the water and made by an independent body.

AHAA!

Now we are getting down to a point I tried to raise many, many post ago: Who actually assigns the ratings, and exactly what criteria are used?

Now Pollux admits that the judgements are based on data supplied by the manufacturer, not on measurements made by the NAs and NEs from the RCD that he was on about. And this seems to have meant that a boat that he, Pollux, thinks is not suitable for class A has in fact been granted that exalted rating. Apparently the manufacturer's NA can use whatever model he wishes to generate the critical numbers for a vessel, and the result is obvious here.

If it can happen once, it can happen with any design submitted. Why should any of us believe strongly in the rating system?

Please note that I am not attacking any specific design of boat or means of construction. I am questioning the usefulness of the rating system.

Jim

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

That's why this debate exists. Apart from pointing out obvious speed/performance issues, very few of us "posers" (I think that means people who like double-helms according to AVB3) cast aspersions on older blue-water boats like yours for blue-water cruising.

The problem is, as has been shown in thread-after-thread, and forum-after-forum, it's completely different for production boats...especially Hunters in most forums, and Beneteaus in these recent threads here.

If someone claims that "production boats don't belong in blue water" and/or that "ONLY these older, heavy boats are truly suitable for blue water" - that's just clearly wrong. So, it deserves to be refuted. It provides newbs bad, even dangerous, information.

All it takes for a reasoned debate is a somewhat open mind. Those just seem to be rare.

I doubt any newbs will read this far so they are on their own. I doubt any boat basher has ever changed their minds in these threads, until they decide to go boat shopping then they might. I was a basher once but got over and sure been glad. Of course that means that now I'm an idiot.

But as Taylor Swift, who must really understand this debate, says:

'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off
Heart-breakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

That's why I chose the "cheapest" new B48 I could find on YW. They go up to $430K+ in some countries.

See my post above about the term "cheap" and why it's so misleading.

For starters, what you're missing is the huge disparity in this buyer's market b'twn asking & selling prices. A nicely maintained, mid-80's 47.7 will sell for b'twn. $200K & $230K based on what's sold in the past 2-3 years.

There's a really old but nicely maintained Bristol 40 (pre-Hood) up for sale for $60,000. Not your style I know, and not mine either. But would anyone call this a "cheap" boat. Perhaps yes for $60K but definitely not in terms of build quality. If you don't already understand the difference, then compare pricing on it to a Hunter or something comparable back when both boats were new.

Especially in the kind of buyer's market we've had since 2007-08 and the intense competition it's produced for both used & new boats, I would suggest you're generally going to get what you pay for when compared to the alternatives. The exception might be a distress sale, foreclosure, etc. But even then you're probably looking at a boat that's been neglected for a long time and will be putting the money back in for restoration.

I don't understand what's so misleading about the concept of "cheap." Just be sure you're comparing apples to apples.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I know.

But this is what I mean that these terms being thrown around are not so straightforward.

"Different", "more efficient", "modern", "lighter", even "less expensive" - don't necessarily mean "cheap".

Cheap can mean at least two things. One money oriented the other quality oriented:

c"heap adjective .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; }
: not costing a lot of money
: of low quality : not worth a lot of money
: charging low prices

Full Definition of CHEAP

1
a : purchasable below the going price or the real value
b : charging or obtainable at a low price <a good cheap hotel> <cheap tickets>
c : depreciated in value (as by currency inflation) <cheap dollars>

2
: gained or done with little effort <a cheap victory> <talk is cheap>

3
a : of inferior quality or worth : tawdry, sleazy <cheap workmanship>
b : contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities <feeling cheap>

[smackdaddy]

Exactly. So it all comes down to what the boat is supposed to do - and how it stands up to doing it. Again, the essence of this debate.

For cruising the oceans, you can spend a relatively small amount and do everything you want and need to do quite safely - or you can spend a relative fortune and do everything you want and need to do quite safely. Completely up to you.

But the activity is the exactly same.

In this context, less expensive doesn't necessarily mean "cheap". That's the starting point.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

AHAA!

Now we are getting down to a point I tried to raise many, many post ago: Who actually assigns the ratings, and exactly what criteria are used?

Now Pollux admits that the judgements are based on data supplied by the manufacturer, not on measurements made by the NAs and NEs from the RCD that he was on about. And this seems to have meant that a boat that he, Pollux, thinks is not suitable for class A has in fact been granted that exalted rating. Apparently the manufacturer's NA can use whatever model he wishes to generate the critical numbers for a vessel, and the result is obvious here.

If it can happen once, it can happen with any design submitted. Why should any of us believe strongly in the rating system?

Please note that I am not attacking any specific design of boat or means of construction. I am questioning the usefulness of the rating system.

Jim

+1 Like i say before , the RCD ISO its a joke inside of a Circus!!
So basically the Delphia enjoy a rate A and a Nauticat 38 enjoy a rate B, i wonder if Delphia use a In house NA??

By the way,the new Marlow Hunter 31 is rated A to, i guess he pass the AVS test , so basically if a cork of 20 something feet in lenght with enough stability and a roof to let the crew hide in case of bad weather is candidate to be rated A.
Rate A , they dont rate the strenght of the hull or rigging, its all based in stability?? just asking....

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

+1 Like i say before , the RCD ISO its a joke inside of a Circus!!
So basically the Delphia enjoy a rate A and a Nauticat 38 enjoy a rate B, i wonder if Delphia use a In house NA??

By the way,the new Marlow Hunter 31 is rated A to, i guess he pass the AVS test , so basically if a cork of 20 something feet in lenght with enough stability and a roof to let the crew hide in case of bad weather is candidate to be rated A.

This is why it's hard to take most of your comments seriously.