Can Jeanneau , Bavaria or Beneteau Be Good as Ocean Crossing Boats ?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Zniggy

I've crossed the atlantic with my Jeanneau Sun Magic 44. Next year I'm sailing back (north atlantic) from the US to Scandinavia. But older (up to '96) Jeanneau's and Beneteau are built much stronger, this was before the charter industry could dictate how they should build and design their boats.

THeres no evidence to back up your claim. and anyway the charter industry wants em strong not light. charter companies care little about performance. if anything its the cruiser racing fraternity ( which is what alot of european users actually do , ie round the cans and then an annual cruise with the wife and kids, are pushing for lighter ie faster boats. proof of this is conpanies light Halbeg Rassey, Naiad, moody ( hanse) etc all going toward lighter fin keel and spade rudders etc. These are not "charter" boats

The fact is improvements in material science, computer modeling and analysis, closed resin infusion systems, better components and techniques are producing a stronger boat pound for pound. a 2010 car is better then its 1970s equivalent, the same is true for GRP boats.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

THeres no evidence to back up your claim. and anyway the charter industry wants em strong not light. charter companies care little about performance. if anything its the cruiser racing fraternity ( which is what alot of european users actually do , ie round the cans and then an annual cruise with the wife and kids, are pushing for lighter ie faster boats. proof of this is conpanies light Halbeg Rassey, Naiad, moody ( hanse) etc all going toward lighter fin keel and spade rudders etc. These are not "charter" boats

The fact is improvements in material science, computer modeling and analysis, closed resin infusion systems, better components and techniques are producing a stronger boat pound for pound. a 2010 car is better then its 1970s equivalent, the same is true for GRP boats.

Not 100% true!! some builders yes, some others with the same material science build junk,, many boats have a pedigree in fact on how well aged , and others just the time tell us, how you based that a 2010 boat is better that a old 1990 boat?? the beneteau reputation come from the new models, the time when the builders spend 7 to 10 days in a carefull hull lay up is gone almost, i have the oportunity to take a tour in the lagoon factory, well , you know, this people made hulls like donuts.
There is a huge diference in quality between a halberg rassy and a jeaneau, also in price, i know there is a such improvement in materials for boat construction, like epoxy and vinilester resins, infusions, etc....Are you read the tread in forum about a J loosing their keel in a sand bar grounding,?? modern science!!! lol
And many reputable builders also start swichting to fin keels and spade ruders , rassy too!! Cruising around the world,, ahhhh fantastic!!
In my mind BE READY FOR THE WORST AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.... Regards mates....

[Curmudgeon]

I would have an orgasm if my boat had a "closed resin infusion system." Maybe two orgasms. And at the same time.

[Zniggy]

I'm not going to dig for evidence. I'v been dealing with the greek for some years, and they know these brands like no one else imo
And in europe Bavaria (Ikea boats) is known for loosing their keel. Stay away from Bavaria if you're oscean crossing.
But a funny thing I've noticed. I've been sailing both europe and us waters. Americans always seemed to have a problem with the Jeanneau, benneteau and other brands - didn't trust them as seaworthy boats. And the same with us europeans, don't trust the american brands. Not the "truth", just an observation

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The fact is improvements in material science, computer modeling and analysis, closed resin infusion systems, better components and techniques are producing a stronger boat pound for pound. a 2010 car is better then its 1970s equivalent, the same is true for GRP boats.

On paper (computer model) I don't doubt the new boats are stronger. But, we can not really say this for aother 10-20 years to see how they really hold up.

[MC01]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

On paper (computer model) I don't doubt the new boats are stronger. But, we can not really say this for another 10-20 years to see how they really hold up.

. . . However pound-for-pound strong (probably true since the glass-to-resin ratios are optimized) isn't necessarily stronger with respect to the boat's overall ability to hold up to the abuse of the sea, it's just stronger with respect to the displacement of the boat. For example, I think there's little doubt a Pacific Seacraft hull is stronger than a "production boat" hull overall, even though it's laid up using traditional methods and is therefore pound-for-pound weaker. Having the hull over an inch thick near the keel may not be the most efficient use of glass / resin, but the PSC's are solid as a rock according to an overland boat shipping company owner I know. The same guy refers to the production boats as "Clorox bottles" because they cause him problems in supporting the boat for transport. For their LWL however, PSCs are heavy displacement boats, and this is desirable for some uses, and not desirable for others. This brings us back to the idea that it’s important to choose the right boat for your use and requirements. Production boats are great for some uses and individuals, and so are non-production boats for others.

Although not indicative of overall strength of the hull, I'm a little troubled by the disgust our local canvas shop owner has for "production boat’s thin skin" when it comes to mounting bimini and dodger hardware. He states he has to use special procedures to reinforce these installations with epoxy so the hardware doesn't easily pull out. If the new materials are stronger, why wouldn't this be true all around the boat, including for hardware installations, OR . . . why doesn't he have the same problem with non-production boats? OK, the answer is probably that some of the strength in the new production boats comes from the use of stringers which are only found below the waterline, etc..

The new manufacturing processes are not used to increase the overall hull strength because the intended use of the product is primarily coastal cruising, not hard-core offshore use. The new processes are used to reduce labor costs and improve consistency in manufacturing (i.e., minimize occurrences of human error in the lay up process, optimize glass-to-resin ratio, etc.), thus allowing the manufacturer to offer the product at a completive cost and yet still maximize their per-unit profit.

Nevertheless, production boats ARE being used for significant offshore use, and so “the proof is in the pudding” so to speak. Therefore, it seems the issue is not production vs. traditional, it’s instead feature vs. feature (e.g., wide open cockpits vs. small cockpit, wide open cabins with few hand-holds vs. smaller cabins with lots of hand-holds, fewer/smaller hardware items vs. more/robust hardware items, high aspect fin keel vs. modified fin or full keel, etc.). I’m glad we have these choices, I see some real benefits either way, and as my needs change over time, it’s nice to be able to choose from a range of approaches. Here’s to the success of the production manufacturers and the traditional manufacturers. They are both supporting a great way of life for us all.

[Steve W]

(Result at the end of the video)

[CharlieCobra]

Dunno, the truck didn't plunge through the deck. I reckon that says something about it's strength. I hate to imagine the first time they catch a beam wave.....

[Seahunter]

What I'd like to know is why 2-4 year old B-B & J's are loosing their through-hulls, then claiming bonding isn't necessary. I've three friends that have had to all through-hull replaced; some who had catastrophic failure. This would really suck if one was to fail offshore.

[Sailndive345]

Originally Posted by Seahunter

What I'd like to know is why 2-4 year old B-B & J's are loosing their through-hulls, then claiming bonding isn't necessary. I've three friends that have had to all through-hull replaced; some who had catastrophic failure. This would really suck if one was to fail offshore.

Would you please elaborate further on this one? I inspect/operate my throughhulls regularly and have not seen any visible deterioration to date. Are these boats moored at the same marina? Is there anything in common among them such as year/model, etc? If there is something else going on that isn't very visible, it would be nice to check on it.

I travel frequently - would hate to see my boat at the bottom because of something that can be proactively handled

Thanks in advance!

Sailndive

[Seahunter]

I know of 4; all from the west coast. (There are more that I've heard of but have not spoken with the owners.) One from San Diego (repaired under warranty) one from San Pedro (partial repair under warranty) two from Marina Del Rey (warranty pending). The scuttlebutt at the local haul-outs is that one could start their own business just changing through-hulls on these brandings. I've heard from one owner that the local B&J dealer lost their dealership, because of how they maintained warranty issues and is in direct communication with B. Either way I saw 3 of these boats before and after and they all looked the same before; sweating, discolored through-hulls at ages of less than 4 years old. B says that their t-hulls are designed to last 10 years without bonding; I say that this declaration is suspect.
Check out this post: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ion-25289.html

[Sailndive345]

That's quite amazing. Since Beneteau is not in the throughhull manufacturing business, I wonder who the supplier of these is - sounds like someone must have goofed up the alloy...? Layla (my B) is a '97 model and I know for a fact the throughhulls do not show such signs and they are not bonded. My previous Beneteau that I owned for over 20 years also did not have bonded through hulls and neither had an issue with the non-bonding. I think there are differing opinions on the bonding approach and that's another thread - probably...

I had missed the link the first go around - It is quite enlightening indeed. I wonder what Beneteau is saying about all this? At least they seem to stand behind their boats and fixing the boats

Thanks!

Sailndive

[Seahunter]

From what I understand, it's only the newer boats that have that "chrome-look" through hulls. They're made from three alloys (duh) and in salt water become a battery. My friend just had all his replaced with bronze.
The San Diego one is a Bordeaux 60' owned by a lawyer who had them pay for all repairs after an "extended and protracted argument" to the tune of 100K.

[Randyonr3]

Having problems with boats, recalls and repairs is all part of the industry.. You hear about it more with higher production boats because there are more of them out there.. I've been to the Pacific Seacraft factory and seen the way they have production on line.. and the amount of boats they produce..
Count the amount of boats built by PS compared that of Catalina.. The two factories are only a few miles apart But Catalina is probably 5 times the size and probably puts out 10 to 1 of the PS..
So lets say they did run across a pile of thru-hulls gone bad, on both boats.. they recall 3 of the PS..not bad, but they would have to recall 30 of the Catalinas built over the same time frame.. so even thou the percentage is the same, the Catalina gets the bad rap.
And If the thru-hulls are bad, its not the first time a re-call has happened and was taken care of..
Lets go back a few years.. And Beneteau..
One of the most sought after models is FIRST series in the early to mid 80s,
But that was a time that builders were still playing with Fiberglass and Epoxys and looking for the right forumla for boat building..
ChrisCraft in there power boats went over-kill and started building heavy hulls and some, (like my brothers) has a hull that has over 2 & 1/2 inches of solid fiberglass in the forward area.. They didnt know what the strength over time wiuld be so they overbuilt..
The Beneteau Factory, started playing with the epoxys and had a big problem..
Seem the poly they were using as an epoxy allowed water to penetrete the glass..
Hundreds of Beneteaus were recalled and the bottoms were pealed due to blisters and a new epoxy bottom was applied..
I know this as Mine is one of the boats that was pealed.. And the new bottom that was applied was far superior.. To this date, and 4 haulouts over the last 7 years, I've never sean a blister one on the bottom of the boat..

[MC01]

It's really unfortunate when a new design idea doesn't work out in practice and ends up impacting the customer. It can happen to any manufacturer as they make changes in an attempt to improve things. The important issue is how they behave in the face of such a problem. Do they deny the issue? Do they blame the customer? Do they make the customer fight tooth and nail before they do the right thing? From the accounts above anyway, it sounds like Beneteau may be trying to do the right thing by their customers. If so good for them, that gives potential future buyers some confidence they can trust the company to stand behind their product. I'm sure many of us are aware of some recent horror stories concerning other manufacturers that have behaved disgracefully in similar circumstances.