Ok, What about Bali 4.5?

[CbroTheDude]

Originally Posted by Factor

If its intended purpose is to not to be able to sail out of sight on a dark night with a cyclone up its posterior, then yes I agree with you.

Weird way to put of things, always negative. As no one ever engineered a boat specifically to not be able achieve something. Then again, if all of this is to remind us again that this is no Outremer, or even Catana 70 (which just finished circumnavigating in 133 days) well it was certainly obvious to anyone here

[PhiSig1071]

Originally Posted by Factor

NO - No I am not.

If its intended purpose is to not to be able to sail out of sight on a dark night with a cyclone up its posterior, then yes I agree with you.

You're criticizing a boat based on what is not it's intended purpose.

What if I said:

"The Corsair Tri's are absolute sh!t boats! They don't have a separate shower with standing headroom and they don't have a queen size island birth!? They're sh!t! Worthless piece of garbage!"

Sounds pretty dumb, since obviously a Corsair Tri isn't intended as a liveaboard, right?

Well, when you complain about a condomaran party barge not being able to handle adverse weather while making a blue water passage, it sounds about the same. Obviously it's not good for that, it's not built for it, obviously the parent company is fully capable of building blue-water globe girdlers, they chose not to.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071

You're criticizing a boat based on what is not it's intended purpose.

He's not, actually. He was responding to a comment stating that because Catana is behind the boat the sailing performance would not be of concern. You're closer to agreeing than you think; the boat is not designed to be a performer irrespective of being Catana's boat.

[44'cruisingcat]

Exactly. Catanas are generally well built, good performig, serious cruising boats. They're also expensive, and pretty much aimed at private buyers.

IMO the Bali range is an attempt by Catana to make more sales in the charter market.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Exactly. Catanas are generally well built, good performig, serious cruising boats. They're also expensive, and pretty much aimed at private buyers.

IMO the Bali range is an attempt by Catana to make more sales in the charter market.

Yep, they're having their pants pulled down by Lagoon, FP et al and have now developed a product to compete against those popular offerings in that segment. It's a sound business decision that will hopefully see the Catanas preserved as they are and not morphed into a charter boat to attract those sales.

I've always liked the Catanas; the 47 was probably my first dream boat.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Exactly. Catanas are generally well built, good performig, serious cruising boats. They're also expensive, and pretty much aimed at private buyers.

IMO the Bali range is an attempt by Catana to make more sales in the charter market.

Yep, they're having their pants pulled down by Lagoon, FP et al and have now developed a product to compete against those popular offerings in that segment. It's a sound business decision that will hopefully see the Catanas preserved as they are and not morphed into a charter boat to attract those sales.

I've always liked the Catanas; the 47 was probably my first dream boat.

[Barra]

Yes I agree. By not morphing the catana range to chase the charter market they and their customers will hopefully wind up with the best of both worlds - ie a continuation of a performing and safe world cruiser as well as increased sales revenue from the charter market targeted balis.

We have seen the leopards morph away from safe offshore designs to capture the charter market and that has effectively removed one production cat builder from the world cruisers list.

Just beware the salespeople that pitch the "shes a catana so she sails well" line. Compromises have been made to performance and offshore safety with the bali range that are not an issue for a weeks chartering but would be for bluewater cruising.

Same goes for the leopards but there is no choice for buyers here other than to stick with the older leopard designs so well done Catana I say

[CbroTheDude]

Yet lots of confusion still being made, as I understood some were saying Bali would sail well for boats in their range. To what factor, tp12 and all disagreed saying it wasn't an offshore cruiser so wouldn't sail well... |-(

Originally Posted by tp12

Yep, they're having their pants pulled down by Lagoon, FP et al and have now developed a product to compete against those popular offerings in that segment.

Making a new business offer would rather show good health than difficulty. Catana are selling good in their segment, as the 4th catamaran builder behind R&C

[tp12]

Originally Posted by CbroTheDude

Yet lots of confusion still being made, as I understood some were saying Bali would sail well for boats in their range. To what factor, tp12 and all disagreed saying it wasn't an offshore cruiser so wouldn't sail well... |-(




Making a new business offer would rather show good health than difficulty. Catana are selling good in their segment, as the 4th catamaran builder behind R&C

Regarding the first part of your post - I guess it depends on what you mean by 'sail well for boats in their range'. How do you define that 'range'?

You can look at a number of aspects/characteristics of a boat to get a general idea of how it fits in the sailing performance spectrum of all catamarans. There's sail area, weight, beam to length ratio, bruce number and so on.. even bridgedeck clearance. Even looking at 'how much boat' you get for a given length can help.

When comparing these metrics against the range of catamarans available it's reasonably easy to understand market/segment positioning and the Bali's are not positioned in the performance end. That's not a criticism, by the way. It's simply the market they're choosing to target. And they've done so because it's the segment with the most sales globally and one they did not have a presence in prior to the Bali range. It's just good business. You point out that they're 4th largest builder but on what metric(s), in what year(s) etc .. there's a lot more to the picture than just '4th largest builder'. For example, if you're doing ok, and only 4th best is ok, not great, and you see a market segment that you don't have a product in booming and you ignore it ... then you'd better hope that you're not a listed company with a board that will be asking you some hard questions ....

Regarding the second part. It's simply good business sense to produce a product in a market segment that you don't really operate in - especially when it's the largest volume, with the highest growth, segment. A look at the charter fleets worldwide and actual sales volumes will show this to be the case and will explain why Catana have decided to build the Bali range.

Nothing I've posted here is controversial.

[CbroTheDude]

Originally Posted by tp12

Regarding the first part of your post - I guess it depends on what you mean by 'sail well for boats in their range'. How do you define that 'range'?



You can look at a number of aspects/characteristics of a boat to get a general idea of how it fits in the sailing performance spectrum of all catamarans. There's sail area, weight, beam to length ratio, bruce number and so on.. even bridgedeck clearance. Even looking at 'how much boat' you get for a given length can help.



When comparing these metrics against the range of catamarans available it's reasonably easy to understand market/segment positioning and the Bali's are not positioned in the performance end. That's not a criticism, by the way. It's simply the market they're choosing to target. And they've done so because it's the segment with the most sales globally and one they did not have a presence in prior to the Bali range. It's just good business. You point out that they're 4th largest builder but on what metric(s), in what year(s) etc .. there's a lot more to the picture than just '4th largest builder'. For example, if you're doing ok, and only 4th best is ok, not great, and you see a market segment that you don't have a product in booming and you ignore it ... then you'd better hope that you're not a listed company with a board that will be asking you some hard questions ....



Regarding the second part. It's simply good business sense to produce a product in a market segment that you don't really operate in - especially when it's the largest volume, with the highest growth, segment. A look at the charter fleets worldwide and actual sales volumes will show this to be the case and will explain why Catana have decided to build the Bali range.



Nothing I've posted here is controversial.

True, I agree with what you say here. Everything is relative in terms of performance indeed, and the market segment Bali belong to could be naturally defined as charter purposes cats, or "condomaran". Balis aren't that voluminous for their length and have acceptable bridgedeck clearance so dismissing the unknown about the front beach, it has some arguments for acceptable sailing capacity despite its segment (I obviously didn't consider quality and such which aren't about the design itself)
Next, I rank builders in terms of units sold over 37 ft per fiscal year, with the 2015/2016 results put:
1. lagoon
2. Fountaine Pajot
3 R&C/leopard
4. Catana/Bali

Expanding is indeed a good idea if you have the means to do so, as in Catana was already doing pretty well, so invested to diversify their offer. Large number of builders who makes catamarans in the Catana range can't afford to/don't want to do so

[tp12]

Can we see those units sold? Where are you getting your data from? My comment re: lagoon and fp et al pulling their pants down was on volume. I'd like to see the volume of lagoon and fp compared to Catana (not including Bali)

Also, it's common business practice for a struggling company to change their offerings. Funding those changes can come from many areas, not just the balance sheet, that's how corporate finance works.

[CbroTheDude]

Originally Posted by tp12

Can we see those units sold? Where are you getting your data from? My comment re: lagoon and fp et al pulling their pants down was on volume. I'd like to see the volume of lagoon and fp compared to Catana (not including Bali)

Also, it's common business practice for a struggling company to change their offerings. Funding those changes can come from many areas, not just the balance sheet, that's how corporate finance works.

I can't find every of them back, I know Catana group makes about 20-25 Catanas a year, and about 70 Balis a year. Do not have time to look for every source but that's a good approximation. And yes Lagoon and FP probably pull their pants down in terms of volume making at least two to three times more boats a year but volume isn't everything. i.e., Outremer will double their income by making two Gunboats 68 every year.

Also what you did was an implication not an equivalence, as the mother group of Catana were doing well when they launched Bali, while spending more and more investments into making the Catana 62 and 53. They gave up other activities at the same time but I guess they would have gone more mainstream with new launches if they had to guarantee sales to save the company.

[tp12]

Umm, okaaaaay

I'm not sure if there's any actual point to this but you seem, in the main, to agreeing with me. So that's cool, thanks.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by CbroTheDude

so dismissing the unknown about the front beach,

If by "front Beach" you mean solid foredeck, then its not an unknown. Its not a good thing, I have sailed boats with it and I say again its not a good thing. Had green water over the foredeck on one and didnt think the bow would ever come up, shudder to think what would have happened if we had been going at any speed, eg surfing down a wave.

[CbroTheDude]

Originally Posted by Factor

If by "front Beach" you mean solid foredeck, then its not an unknown. Its not a good thing, I have sailed boats with it and I say again its not a good thing. Had green water over the foredeck on one and didnt think the bow would ever come up, shudder to think what would have happened if we had been going at any speed, eg surfing down a wave.

That's a bit remote imo to make a comparison, let alone conclusions.