Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

It certainly depends on how you use a boat, If you are a holiday cruiser things are going to last longer because you pick and choose your days to sail with many long rests in between.
If you take the same boat offshore on a long passage I can pretty much guaranty that your list of fix its will be much longer and more involved. Sailing 24/7 for weeks at a time is just hard on boats period.

I don't know about that but I know that most do a lot less than 2500nm on a boat for year, even many that live aboard full time (according with a thread about that on sailnet) and that regarding the average of boats 18000nm on a 6 year old boat is hugely more than average so I guess that the assessment is pretty fair. If we were talking about a 30 year boat doing miles at the same rhythm we would be talking about a boat with 90 000nm and an engine with 10 000 hours.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

According to a prior post by Dave/goboatingnow, this discrepancy in the life of brass seacocks may have more to do with marina ac systems in the US vs. Europe & their respective levels of electrolysis. I hope I'm restating what he said correctly. Still, it seems like there's broad consensus that bronze or Marelon are more desirable, and the CE/ISO std. will soon be amended accordingly. Unfortunately, the fact remains that brass is cheaper and dangerousy susceptible to failure in some areas of the world. This is probably just another example of building a boat to a price point, but that's just one of the trade-offs in buying a lower-end boat. The upside is that these boats are more affordable to a greater number of people, but only so long as they are aware.

I agree. Those seacocks posted by Neil showed signs of electrical corrosion an that is not a normal situation. I know of propellers from good brands that almost disappeared from one year to another due to freak and inadequate marina equipment (and not enough zink protection, no visual check for a long time). The guys from Bavaria that do boat maintenance are not interested in selling boats and if they told Neil that seacocks are normally replaced each 15 years it's because its their experience regarding Bavarias, that they serve certainly more then Neil.

Anyway, seacocks like rudders, independently of the estimated duration is something that should be checked thoroughly each year.

Again, its incredible as someone let sacocks reach the state of the ones on that Bavaria. There is a reason for that corrosion over 7 years and if that happens on a 7 year old boat, it is not only the seacocks but some electrical problem. Surely Neil can find a way to have a look at other Bavarias with 7 years or more and he would not find that level of corrosion. I hope Neil can find the source of it otherwise the problem will remain, more moderate on the first years, but in the end that guy will be changing seacoks frequently.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by NorthPacific

I believe I have read that most "modern designed" high production boats are built with the charter fleet as their prime customers.

That means wide beams that hold their volume to accommodate "sate rooms" aft. Profitability means cutting costs as the fate of bullet proof westerly and moody yachts shows what holding onto aged concepts of strength and practicality in a seaway does not sell well with most modern customers.
...
My own boat an older Dufour35 was built under the title as a fast blue water cruiser. Strong with many of the sea keeping characteristics that give s you hope you made the right choice. ..
Steve

Steve, I find the old Dufour 35 is a fine boat but do not find as good some of your other considerations

That story about modern boats being designed with big beams due to the charter fleet use makes no sense. Almost all brands, including the ones that by their cost are not used on the charter market (Halberg Rassy, Amel) are doing boats with hulls very similar to the ones of Bavaria or Jeanneau are using.

Besides even Beneteau or Bavaria sell for the charter market a small percentage of their total number of boats and even on the ones (sizes) that are more used to that the percentage is a lot smaller then 1/3 and even that is huge.

The boats are designed like they are by the same reason solo racers are designed beamy and not narrow, not anything to do with interior space even if that comes as a very nice bonus. Compare some boat hulls:

A Halderg Rassy 412 with a Jeanneau 409 and a Bavaria 41. Look at the hull shapes:







Compare an Amel 55 with a Jeanneau 57 and a Bavaria 55. Look at the hull shapes:

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nope.

It's the self appointed " experts" who say things like "and my word on that is enough" when one asks for references or links on assertions they make.

That stretches credibility doesn't it?

Yes, so then in relation to this topic, I can add one other "expert" outside of the yard guys.

Mark

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

Yes, so then in relation to this topic, I can add one other "expert" outside of the yard guys.

Mark

It seems to me the "yard guys" who have contributed to these discussions have given us invaluable insight on common issues they see.

I, for one, have reevaluated what maintenance, inspections and replacements will be done on my boat. As a result of these numerous discussions, and some of the evidence presented, I have also reevaluated and change my mind on the usefulness and appropriateness of using Marlon seacocks. When I will need to replace any of mine, Marlon will be high on the list of those I will look at.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

And another mass production boat on the final stages of a long circumnavigation. They leaved England in 2008 and almost 6 years later they are at Cap town.

A British Family of three (Chris,Lorraine Marchant and their little kid) aboard an Beneteau Oceanis 423, a solid boat designed by Finot, a great design that still looks very nice today.





Unfortunately not many photos and a rather poor blog:
Gryphon II - Chris and Lorraine Marchant

a sister ship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594eonFLA-8

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

A wet Hunter keel coming off (mine), same honeycomb build quality as the Hunter rudder pictured in the other guys thread. The keel came loose under light normal use, motoring around in San Francisco Bay. How many times do you have to be shown? Jeez... copy them for future reference.

I wanted to come back to this Hunter keel issue that Keno brought into the mix.

I guess I'm still not seeing the real "problem" here from a design and build perspective.

Let's first take the "honeycomb build quality". I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I assume he means that it's not monolithic - in other words, it has the voids you see in the pic. Now, this certainly doesn't surprise me in that this is a fairly common building technique to control the distribution of the weight throughout a structure. And it makes a lot of sense to me in a keel - where it seems you want to keep the bulk of the weight as low as possible.

So - for the design/build experts - Is there a reason a keel needs to be monolithic? Does this "honeycomb" technique automatically equate to "poor design/build standards"?

Let's then take the foam issue. Again, continuing on the weight distribution logic above, it makes perfect sense to put some kind of light filler in these voids (not really necessary for anything structurally I don't think, but provides a bit more internal support maybe?). Now, from a water intrusion perspective, granted, it's definitely not the best material. I could certainly see how it would soak up that water and become a mess that does more harm than good. No argument there.

But this brings me to my second point - should water be getting into the keel in the first place? Is this what "good keels" are designed for...providing for water intrusion? Or was there another problem in play in his keel issue above?

Some of you may know that I'm rather fond of another very accomplished Hunter out there called Sequitur.

Here is that boat being brought into the yard for the first time to be assembled after shipping (you'll noticed it's been shipped from the factory without the keel attached - for obvious reasons):



And now the guys at the yard are attaching the keel:



We presume that this attachment was done correctly and with the utmost attention to quality. No errors. But what if it wasn't? Would the joint potentially start leaking? If so, is this a problem with the design/build of the boat? Or does the shoddiness lie elsewhere?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Look at the hull shapes

You better show us some hull shapes (=lines drawings) instead of interior arrangements

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

It seems to me the "yard guys" who have contributed to these discussions have given us invaluable insight on common issues they see.

I, for one, have reevaluated what maintenance, inspections and replacements will be done on my boat. As a result of these numerous discussions, and some of the evidence presented, I have also reevaluated and change my mind on the usefulness and appropriateness of using Marlon seacocks. When I will need to replace any of mine, Marlon will be high on the list of those I will look at.

Well, you better check past threads on this containing the yard guys view of Marelon. You may not like it.

I'm with you and our boat is all Marelon. Just be sure to get the OEM 93 series of seacocks and valves. The consumer stuff found in most chandleries is not that good. Forespar says they don't sell the 93 series to consumers, but they do. You will probably need to order them directly from Forespar, but also may be able to get someone like HopCar or Defender to order them for you.

The yard guys have provided many insights, but fewer facts - particularly in relation to this brass topic.

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

The CE standard provides a reference point for liability assignment and is a useful marketing tool for boat builders. The CE standard gives no indication of the survivability of a vessel.
...
No pleasure vessels receive this level of testing and certification rigour no matter what the salesperson tells you. The volumes are too small and the testing costs can't be viably amortised. There are also no pleasure vessel legislation in place to mandate this level of rigour. So don't think you're buying a proven product. Every pleasure vessel is in essence a prototype.
..

No indication to the survivabilityt of a vessel except in what concerns the information regarding the conditions the boat was designed to sustain and those that were not.

Regarding the last point, even if essentially true two points should be mentioned that makes a mass production boat different from a prototype or an one off: Mass production builders use on many boats the same techniques, the same type of rudder, the same type of structure, the same type of keel attachment that had been used successfully on thousands of other boats. This allows them a level of information that lacks on a true prototype.

Also many mass production boats are built in many hundreds of copies and the information feed back from the dealers and the owners regarding less positive aspects allows the boat to be modified and improved. Even if the first boat has some resemblances with a prototype, after some months, it is a true production boat. Normally all mass production boats have small improvements regarding the ones that were built first, most of the time you cannot see them but they are there.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You better show us some hull shapes (=lines drawings) instead of interior arrangements

I use what I get The idea was to show an upper view, the one that show beam and hull form in what concerns that.

[SwissMocha]

Originally Posted by Polux

You are a Swiss citizen? If you are you are required to have a licence to sail a sailboat with more than 15m2 of sail and also if you have a boat you are subjected to mandatory technical controls each three years. Without that you don't have the document that authorizes you to use the boat.

Polux, I'm a Swiss citizen. Just a few remarks to what you have stated,

Yes, in theory you have to have a skippers license (B-Schein), and all the Swiss sailing people I know have one. But the authorities will never check when you are cruising, because you will never be in Switzerland.

When you have a boat somewhere on the ocean (usually cat A or B) and you want a Swiss flag for that, you have to meet the technical requirements to get that. That will include an expertise of a licensed surveyor (for used boats) meaning that the surveyor has to be accepted by the Swiss authorities (they provide you with a list of possible choices),

You have to renew the flag every three years and for that you have to provide proof that the vessel is seaworthy. A technical inspection is not mandatory as long as you provide e.g. invoices which show what kind of work has been done on the boat. Also you have to provide proof, that the raft has been properly inspected and that the boat is insured.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I wanted to come back to this Hunter keel issue that Keno brought into the mix.

I guess I'm still not seeing the real "problem" here from a design and build perspective.

Let's first take the "honeycomb build quality". I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I assume he means that it's not monolithic - in other words, it has the voids you see in the pic. Now, this certainly doesn't surprise me in that this is a fairly common building technique to control the distribution of the weight throughout a structure. And it makes a lot of sense to me in a keel - where it seems you want to keep the bulk of the weight as low as possible.

So - for the design/build experts - Is there a reason a keel needs to be monolithic? Does this "honeycomb" technique automatically equate to "poor design/build standards"?

Let's then take the foam issue. Again, continuing on the weight distribution logic above, it makes perfect sense to put some kind of light filler in these voids (not really necessary for anything structurally I don't think, but provides a bit more internal support maybe?). Now, from a water intrusion perspective, granted, it's definitely not the best material. I could certainly see how it would soak up that water and become a mess that does more harm than good. No argument there.

But this brings me to my second point - should water be getting into the keel in the first place? Is this what "good keels" are designed for...providing for water intrusion? Or was there another problem in play in his keel issue above?

Some of you may know that I'm rather fond of another very accomplished Hunter out there called Sequitur.

Here is that boat being brought into the yard for the first time to be assembled after shipping (you'll noticed it's been shipped from the factory without the keel attached - for obvious reasons):



And now the guys at the yard are attaching the keel:



We presume that this attachment was done correctly and with the utmost attention to quality. No errors. But what if it wasn't? Would the joint potentially start leaking? If so, is this a problem with the design/build of the boat? Or does the shoddiness lie elsewhere?

I think we have a topic in CF regarding the keels in the Hunter , as far i remember they are commissioned to a sub contract for keels and other stuff, but dont take my Word for granted , maybe not,, i cant remember...

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

Well, you better check past threads on this containing the yard guys view of Marelon. You may not like it.

I've seen those threads, and frankly, my opinion was influenced by them. What I've seen here, especially the stress test videos, have put them in a much more positive light for me. The fact that the are not subject to any of electrolysis is certainly a big benefit.

I'm with you and our boat is all Marelon. Just be sure to get the OEM 93 series of seacocks and valves. The consumer stuff found in most chandleries is not that good. Forespar says they don't sell the 93 series to consumers, but they do. You will probably need to order them directly from Forespar, but also may be able to get someone like HopCar or Defender to order them for you.

Thanks for the heads up on the 93 series. I was not aware of the difference.





Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

Originally Posted by SwissMocha

...

You have to renew the flag every three years and for that you have to provide proof that the vessel is seaworthy. A technical inspection is not mandatory as long as you provide e.g. invoices which show what kind of work has been done on the boat. Also you have to provide proof, that the raft has been properly inspected and that the boat is insured.
...

Thanks for the clarification. I was puzzled how Swiss would be able to fulfill what the legislation demand, not having sea, having lots of boats with Swiss banner on the sea:

A translation of the legal documents just for the others to be able to see of what we are talking about:

"TECHNICAL CONTROL

The accepted boats are subjected to subsequent inspections.

The periodicity of technical controls are:

Two years for rental boats and cargo vessels whose hull is not entirely of steel;
Six years for non-motorized boats;
Three years for other vessels.
In particular cases and for certain facilities, the competent authority may establish different deadlines. When there is reason to doubt that a boat meets the requirements, the authority may order an inspection office.

Documents to be submitted to the inspector during technical inspection are:

the convocation
The navigation license
The emission control system maintenance sheet for motorboats
For boats with gas and / or electricity over 24 volts, a valid certificate of conformity issued by a recognized body, must be provided.
....

Art 14 - Official inspections

1 Before the license is issued, the boat must be subject to an official inspection.
2 The Federal Council may exempt from the individual inspection boats that were the subjected to a type expertise.
3 Subsequent inspections should take place:
a:at regular intervals;
b:when the boat no longer seems to offer the required safety of navigation;
c:if the boat has undergone substantial changes.
4 The holder or owner of the boat is required to announce the essential changes to the competent authority.
5 The Federal Council enacts provisions for the inspection of ships."

Controle technique
RS 747.201 Loi fédérale du 3 octobre 1975 sur la navigation intérieure (LNI)

It seems to me that even in the efficient Swiss some laws are very difficult or almost dificult to implement and that the solutions that you presented as what really happens is a kind of way to turn around a law impossible or very dificult to implement

Just one more clarification, you mean that the boat has to be compulsively insured? If so only that will imply in most cases an inspection.