Bavaria or Hunter Bashing

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Further to this discussion. Many have strong feellings egarding modern production boats and the strength of their keels or hull. Whilst the boat is this video is a Dehler and not a Hunter or Bavaria, the basic keel designs are not that different.

The video is in german (unfortunately, but you do not need the commentary.)

This pretty much shows what a modern boat can take.

Carsten has Dehler ever lost a keel on one of their boats that you are aware of?? R

[goboatingnow]

I'm at a loss at the constant commentary on loss of keels, it has happened to a tiny number of boats and discounting the few where there was pre-existing conditions or modifications , the numbers are minuscule.

Could we just leave this rather nonsensical obsession, it reminds me of my father denigrating jap cars still into the 90s when they has taken over the world in reliability and ruggedness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Carsten has Dehler ever lost a keel on one of their boats that you are aware of?? R

Robert

To my knowledge no. But the Dehler keels and Bavaria keels and the benejenniehansa keel fastenings are almost identical. There really aren't any secrets inthe production boat trade.


I agree with Dave. Yes a couple of keels have been lost due to design errors, but that was years ago - time and keel design have moved on.

Other keels (not many) have been lost due to hard groundings without proper inspection and maintenance afterwards (I simply cannot see how the manufacturer can be faulted for this).

Keels are not really an issue, unless someone wants to make one and then they are just beating a very dead horse

[neilpride]

Well , to me, screw a hig aspect ratio fin keel trough a thin flat bottom section of Fg trough the flat section of the grid liner is just a insane way to get problems sooner or later,, First 40,7... AKA dozens and dozens of production boats this days....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Well , to me, screw a hig aspect ratio fin keel trough a thin flat bottom section of Fg trough the flat section of the grid liner is just a insane way to get problems sooner or later,, First 40,7... AKA dozens and dozens of production boats this days....

Neil you know perfectly well that was called liners had evolved with time and what was only used for providing the support for interior layout is now a complete grid that serves that function but also the one of providing internal hull structural support distributing the loads of shrouds and keel for all the hull. No sense in calling that liners.
The keels are not bolted to a thin section of fiberglass but to the grid frame and then through the fiberglass.

Beneteau uses an integral frame that they call "Structure de coque contremoulée" calling to that grid liners makes no sense.

This is what Beneteau uses as boat stucture:

This is what Bavaria uses:


and this is what Salona uses (Steel Grid):

[neilpride]

No and No Paulo, lots of keels troughbolted to the flat section of the bottom, the first 40.7 is a example, Bavarias, Jeaneaus, etc... there is not a single bolt on those boats bolted to a beefy part of the structure , the Salona is a fine example in how some builders are paying attention to this isue with style, hats off for Salona..


Even this concern start to raise opinions and sugestions in the ISAF and RCD staff.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

No and No Paulo, lots of keels troughbolted to the flat section of the bottom, the first 40.7 is a example, Bavarias, Jeaneaus, etc... there is not a single bolt on those boats bolted to a beefy part of the structure , the Salona is a fine example in how some builders are paying attention to this isue with style, hats off for Salona..


Even this concern start to raise opinions and sugestions in the ISAF and RCD staff.

How the well do you want to bolt directly trough the hull a keel on a Beneteau (or jeanneau) if they use an integral "Structure de coque contremoulée"?



Regarding Bavaria, that design is from one and you can see clearly that the keel bolts go trough the hull and after that trough the hull grid structure and after that they have large backing plates.

[sailorboy1]

Keels aren't falling off boats except in rare cases. But guess this keel thing is an example of not letting facts getting in the way of a good argument

[a64pilot]

May I make an observation.
Seems a few are denigrating "Modern" boats, well there are some modern boats that are exceptionally well made, and there is some junk made too.
Seems some are trying to hold up "Old" boats as the best made, and there were some exceptionally well made boats back in the day, but there was some junk made too, a lot of junk.

Date of manufacture alone does not guarantee anything, except possibly that the junk hasn't survived and was scrapped or sunk long ago, so merely through attrition the better or maybe just more valuable ones survived, maybe that feeds the myth that older was better? Plus we always hear of the good old days, not the bad old days, we have a tendency to remember good things more.

My problem is I can't afford a Modern, well made boat. So in my price range I have two options and I think I'm not alone
1. An older well made boat that has depreciated to the point that I can afford it, or
2. A new boat, manufactured to a price point that I can afford.

I'd never talk bad about a persons pride and joy any more than I would tell them their child is ugly as sin, surely only a very few people would.

But, when asked if I thought in ten yrs. which boat would be in better condition and have suffered less depreciation between an older well founded boat and a new entry level boat, I think the older boat will.
Course I believe an older entry level boat will depreciate less than a new one two

It's not a matter of bashing anything


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Keels aren't falling off boats except in rare cases. But guess this keel thing is an example of not letting facts getting in the way of a good argument

Ford Pinto cars only exploded and incinerated the occupants in rare cases, but I guess that didn't make the drivers and passengers of the 3,000,000 Pintos on the road feel any safer.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

May I make an observation.
Seems a few are denigrating "Modern" boats, well there are some modern boats that are exceptionally well made, and there is some junk made too.
Seems some are trying to hold up "Old" boats as the best made, and there were some exceptionally well made boats back in the day, but there was some junk made too, a lot of junk.

Date of manufacture alone does not guarantee anything, except possibly that the junk hasn't survived and was scrapped or sunk long ago, so merely through attrition the better or maybe just more valuable ones survived, maybe that feeds the myth that older was better? Plus we always hear of the good old days, not the bad old days, we have a tendency to remember good things more.

My problem is I can't afford a Modern, well made boat. So in my price range I have two options and I think I'm not alone
1. An older well made boat that has depreciated to the point that I can afford it, or
2. A new boat, manufactured to a price point that I can afford.

I'd never talk bad about a persons pride and joy any more than I would tell them their child is ugly as sin, surely only a very few people would.

But, when asked if I thought in ten yrs. which boat would be in better condition and have suffered less depreciation between an older well founded boat and a new entry level boat, I think the older boat will.
Course I believe an older entry level boat will depreciate less than a new one two

It's not a matter of bashing anything


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

I think this is a great point, and is relevant to the vast majority of buyers out there. I don't think there's any question about a difference in quality b'twn. more & less expensive boats, it's more a matter of identifying where those differences are to be found and whether they're important to a particular buyer. I, for one, am mainly curious about the differences, if any, that may affect structure & seaworthiness. But unlike objective factors like price of admission & depreciation, the subjective things like interior space & aesthetics are hardly worth arguing about, except to the extent they may help explain the negative bias, fairly perceived or not.

It's why I can't understand all the sensitivity based on what other people think or say about someone else's boat. Your pride & joy is your pride & joy after all.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ford Pinto cars only exploded and incinerated the occupants in rare cases, but I guess that didn't make the drivers and passengers of the 3,000,000 Pintos on the road feel any safer.

I assume you drove a Pinto too?

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ford Pinto cars only exploded and incinerated the occupants in rare cases, but I guess that didn't make the drivers and passengers of the 3,000,000 Pintos on the road feel any safer.

Faced with a choice of a car that rarely exploded, and one that never exploded, I think most people would choose the latter.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think this is a great point, and is relevant to the vast majority of buyers out there. I don't think there's any question about a difference in quality b'twn. more & less expensive boats, it's more a matter of identifying where those differences are to be found and whether they're important to a particular buyer. I, for one, am mainly curious about the differences, if any, that may affect structure & seaworthiness. But unlike objective factors like price of admission & depreciation, the subjective things like interior space & aesthetics are hardly worth arguing about, except to the extent they may help explain the negative bias, fairly perceived or not.



It's why I can't understand all the sensitivity based on what other people think or say about someone else's boat. Your pride & joy is your pride & joy after all.

In my experience the proportional increase in difference in prices between cheaper and more expensive boats is not necessarily reflected in the same proportional increase in quality.

Futhermore of course you can get older boats that fit into a certain budget. But equally you are possibly buying tired systems , mast, rigging , engine etc. an awful amount of money then needs to be spent especially if you envisage the boat being used hard.

Dave

[Exile]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Robert

To my knowledge no. But the Dehler keels and Bavaria keels and the benejenniehansa keel fastenings are almost identical. There really aren't any secrets inthe production boat trade.


I agree with Dave. Yes a couple of keels have been lost due to design errors, but that was years ago - time and keel design have moved on.

Other keels (not many) have been lost due to hard groundings without proper inspection and maintenance afterwards (I simply cannot see how the manufacturer can be faulted for this).

Keels are not really an issue, unless someone wants to make one and then they are just beating a very dead horse

You guys may very well be right, but Bene's recent service advisories calling for periodic keel checks (and not just checking torque on the bolts), and the recent article in Yachting Monthly may still concern some. Could be more of just a reaction to the well-publicized incident with Cheeki (sells magazines), and a CYA deal with Bene, of course, but it's out there. Remember, no DOT or FAA regulating this industry, the CE regs. seem minimal and more proactive than reactive, and many if not most serious repairs are not publicized or documented.

So what about hull strength in the newer production boats? The bow portion of the hull of the crash boat in the video looked pretty thick and the boat itself looked older. We've heard some opinions that the older production boats were built "stronger," but we've also heard that modern composites -- through the use of Kevlar & carbon, for e.g. -- allow for thinner & thus lighter lay-ups. When we see just how thin these lay-ups really are -- for e.g. on the Hunter that sunk at Avalon & a couple of Bene's with their bow sections sheared off -- is this a good thing or just a way to appeal to buyers who desire boats that are lightweight & "fast."

Now before the fans get jammed up by questions like this, I am well aware that sailboats aren't designed for hitting hard objects, that hulls are designed for keeping the water out as opposed to hitting rock jetties & dock pilings, that scores of these boats have circumnavigated, and of course that a Hunter made it to Cape Horn whereas an Oyster hit an iceberg & sunk. You can always choose to feel indignant if you wish, but these are exactly the kinds of questions which, if left unanswered, can cause some to remain skeptical, especially when you're talking about lower-end boats where it's hard to know whether something structural is lightly built for performance or is simply designed to cut corners on mfg. costs.