The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think everyone would concede that mass-produced boats have done circumnavigations, that a Hunter has sailed around Cape Horn, and that so-called "bluewater" boats have lost rudders, thru-hulls, masts, and been holed. Got it, over it, done.

Good! As long as everyone else in the "bluewater debate" agrees with you that said debate is finally dead - that rated production boats are "bluewater boats" - I think we are done. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Exile

So where are all the people you cite, with the credentials you don't think are important, who are saying that the less expensive production processes & materials used in building mass-produced boats result in vessels as structurally sound & therefore seaworthy as more traditional "bluewater" boats? Did I frame the question OK for you?

Well, that is one of the most confusing questions I've ever read. I'll give you that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Buy what you want. The point here is that these kinds of problems are not at all limited to production boats. Clearly. But that always seems to be the thrust of these "bluewater" conversations - a la the trawlered Bene.

THAT thesis, that thrust, is wholly inaccurate.



Again - I've not talked about the "high build quality of modern, mass-produced boats" - I've questioned and/or countered the continuing claims that they are so "low quality that they do not belong offshore - that they are not bluewater boats". Again there is ample evidence out there that this thesis is wholly inaccurate.

So where does that leave us?



If "credentials" are all you need to believe something - good for you. But, you'll find plenty of people with plenty of credentials who say completely different things. There's a reason "get a second opinion" is a valid statement.

For me, the facts have to line up for it to be believable. "Credentials" don't mean squat if that doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Good! As long as everyone else in the "bluewater debate" agrees with you that said debate is finally dead - that rated production boats are "bluewater boats" - I think we are done. Thank you.



Well, that is one of the most confusing questions I've ever read. I'll give you that.

Agreed! This particular debate is over . . . but only if you are unable or unwilling to come up with any opinions, pics, or other evidence that supports your view!

Since you have also chosen not to be forthcoming with your own background, experience, or expertise, we are left only with your many bold but generally unsubstantiated statements. So thus far -- based on the opinions & pics rendered by the "Yard Guys" & others -- we're left with a body of evidence suggesting that lower mfg. cost does equate negatively with build quality, and that some of this inferior build quality is structural and could therefore affect seaworthiness.

Probably doesn't need to be said, but given Smack's admitted confusion, what this obviously does not mean is that these boats should never be taken offshore, that people have not circumnavigated and done long passages on them, or that anyone who buys them is inexperienced, uninformed or has inadequate seamanship skills.

Kapeesh??

[neilpride]

Kapeesh!!!!!!

[SimonV]

Okey yard guys. I am looking at an an older ex charter in the med, I intend to get something in the 45 50 foot range either of the big name brands around 1990 to 2005. The plan is to spend a few years in the med and then a few years sailing home to Oz. Comparing the Bens bavs Jens dofs and others of this grouping. What do I need to look at in regards to issues and faults.

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Agreed! This particular debate is over . . . but only if you are unable or unwilling to come up with any opinions, pics, or other evidence that supports your view!

Exile - you are entertaining.

Polux has already done this several times - but let's take a quick look at the DOCUMENTED REALITY of various boats taking on true ocean passages (Atlantic crossings plus) over 7 years. Then let's look the failure rates of the production boats in those mixes.

All you have to do is go to each of these pages and count the total number of boats (usually ~200), then see how many production boats are in that mix, then see how many "bluewater" boats are in that mix, then, finally, see how many of those production boats failed at sea causing an abandonment or SAR.

Here you go, I'll make it easy for you...

ARC 2008:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 30
Jeanneaus - 15
Bavarias - 14
Swans - 13
Oysters - 17
Moodys - 4
Hunters - 0
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

ARC 2009:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 24
Jeanneaus - 17
Bavarias - 13
Swans - 18
Oysters - 11
Moodys - 3
Hunters - 1
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

ARC 2010:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 27
Jeanneaus - 19
Bavarias - 19
Swans - 19
Oysters - 17
Moodys - 10
Hunters - 0
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search
(This includes the Sweden 42 video I linked to above.)

ARC 2011:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 17
Jeanneaus - 24
Bavarias - 8
Swans - 15
Oysters - 9
Moodys - 3
Hunters - 0
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

ARC 2012:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 18
Jeanneaus - 15
Bavarias - 12
Swans - 19
Oysters - 24
Moodys - 5
Hunters - 1
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

ARC 2013:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 17
Jeanneaus - 19
Bavarias - 12
Swans - 10
Oysters - 18
Moodys - 7
Hunters - 1
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

ARC 2014:
World Cruising Club - ARC Entries

Beneteaus - 21
Jeanneaus - 16
Bavarias - 10
Swans - 14
Oysters - 13
Moodys - 1
Hunters - 1
Bristols - 0

Rescues Search

++++++++

You really couldn't ask for a better test-base than this. Over 7 years, the fleet will encounter all kinds of conditions in the Atlantic that will test boats of all kinds. Many of these boats do the ARC each year - which means they are moving back and forth across this same route. So double the test.

So - IF, as many in this thread say, Beneteaus do indeed have "paper mache" hulls and inferior bulkhead/rudder attachments, or if Jeanneaus are indeed "flimsy" and dangerous because "Liners that mean cheap poor construction, period", or if Bavarias have failed plywood and Ikea furniture or locker finishes that hurts people and falls apart, etc. - wouldn't we see evidence of these things this across these fleets? If these boats really "aren't up to bluewater sailing" - shouldn't actual bluewater have a say in that?

Another thing you can do is look at John Neal's "Boats To Consider for Offshore Cruising"
and see how many of those "bluewater" brands are now defunct. I think you'll find the percentage pretty high.

This is not opinion. This does not require any kind of "credential". This is real. Period.

So - yet again, something does not add up with the claims you hold dear.

(PS - You seem to have as rare a bluewater boat brand as I do! Rarer even!)

[neilpride]

I suggest you to put dufour in the list, they are to me a step forward between bene and jeaneau , and regarding isues, well , since the benes use iron in their keels for that era, and jeaneaus to, the surrounding bilge structure need to be sound and free of bad cracks , keel bolts same, some rust at the surface is normal, corroded nop..I mean a ask the surveyor, they deal with this boats each day , he can point the problematic spots better .. Rudders, keel, chainplates, are to me in the top of the list.

[neilpride]

Smack you need to consider how old are this boats, year, and the weather they are sailed, and like i say before, those ARC numbers dont mean much, a beneteau croosing with the ARC in 2006 can loose a rudder in 2010 and we dont notice it because the owner dont make any report in the net, or the actual beneteau croosing in 2009 prior to join the ARC spend weeks in a boatyard doing repairs, humm. one thing is for sure and well documented in the net, 2 Beneteaus desintegrate in rough weather in the atlantic this year , one taking 4 lives with him, the other close to be a disaster to, Bad weather= bad things happen...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Smack you need to consider how old are this boats, year, and the weather they are sailed, and like i say before, those ARC numbers dont mean much, a beneteau croosing with the ARC in 2006 can loose a rudder in 2010 and we dont notice it because the owner dont make any report in the net, or the actual beneteau croosing in 2009 prior to join the ARC spend weeks in a boatyard doing repairs, humm. .

As I said, these are the numbers pure and simple. All the info is there.

For example, there's a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 52.2, Great Escape of Southampton, that did the rally in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013...and the return. Not bad.

I don't doubt that many of these boats, both production and "bluewater", likely have repairs done before and/or after these voyages. That's common. And as I've said many times, I personally don't expect a production boat or even a "bluewater" boat to last forever.

But if an ARC boat loses a rudder or has to be abandoned or whatever, you'll see it in those Rescues Searches. Definitely. It's part of the coverage of the rally - not just an individual owner's desire to put up info or not.

What do you see in those searches?

Originally Posted by neilpride

..one thing is for sure and well documented in the net, 2 Beneteaus desintegrate in rough weather in the atlantic this year , one taking 4 lives with him, the other close to be a disaster to, Bad weather= bad things happen...

No doubt. That is exactly right. And I would love to know more about the "why".

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

As I said, these are the numbers pure and simple. All the info is there. I don't doubt that many of these boats, both production and "bluewater", likely have repairs done before and/or after these voyages. That's common. And as I've said many times, I personally don't expect a production boat or even a "bluewater" boat to last forever.

But if an ARC boat loses a rudder or has to be abandoned or whatever, you'll see it in those Rescues Searches. Definitely. It's part of the coverage of the rally - not just an individual owner's desire to put up info or not.

What do you see in those searches?



No doubt. That is exactly right. And I would love to know more about the "why".

My point is Smack, you dont need a ARC to break a boat, some nasty stuff happen in diferent places , waters, rallys!!!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Smack you need to consider how old are this boats, year, and the weather they are sailed, and like i say before, those ARC numbers dont mean much, a beneteau croosing with the ARC in 2006 can loose a rudder in 2010 and we dont notice it because the owner dont make any report in the net, or the actual beneteau croosing in 2009 prior to join the ARC spend weeks in a boatyard doing repairs, humm. one thing is for sure and well documented in the net, 2 Beneteaus desintegrate in rough weather in the atlantic this year , one taking 4 lives with him, the other close to be a disaster to, Bad weather= bad things happen...

Well, at least he offered something. A bit desperate perhaps, but I'm sure intelligent people understand all the obvious variables that must be considered before reaching conclusions.

I appreciate how easy Smack is willing to make things, but why am I not seeing a single mass-production boat mfg. on the Neal list of recommended offshore boats he puts so much stock in? Whether the mfgs. themselves are defunct or not, he really shouldn't feel obliged to make it that easy. http://mahina.com/BoatsToConsiderv21.pdf

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

My point is Smack, you dont need a ARC to break a boat, some nasty stuff happen in diferent places , waters, rallys!!!

No argument there, Neil. But you'd be very hard-pressed to find a better sampling and direct comparison of "bluewater" boats and production boats doing serious sailing side-by-side than the ARC.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

No argument there, Neil. But you'd be very hard-pressed to find a better sampling and direct comparison of "bluewater" boats and production boats doing serious sailing side-by-side than the ARC.

Do you cross the pond before? in the ARC or without the ARC? the run from the Canarias to the Carib its one of the easiest croosings you can d o it actually, serious sailing the ARC? my arse, the serious sailing is in the way back home dude, and there the serious boats perform better than the weak ones , hell the ARC is sailed by rowboats to, well not in the ARC, but its a croosing, hobyes cats, jetskys, windsurf boards, drop a clorox botle in a beach in las palmas and few months later is in barbados. even you can do the croosing under bare poles, just take a month holydays in the cabin and voila ..if you mean serious sailing a light boat flying a spinaker in 20 kts trades leaving the heavy one in their wake ok, is up to you..

Why the serious stuff happen in the way back? Azores? ask yourself why?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Do you cross the pond before? in the ARC or without the ARC? the run from the Canarias to the Carib its one of the easiest croosings you can d o it actually, serious sailing the ARC? my arse, the serious sailing is in the way back home dude, and there the serious boats perform better than the weak ones , hell the ARC is sailed by rowboats to, well not in the ARC, but its a croosing, hobyes cats, jetskys, windsurf boards, drop a clorox botle in a beach in las palmas and few months later is in barbados. even you can do the croosing under bare poles, just take a month holydays in the cabin and voila ..if you mean serious sailing a light boat flying a spinaker in 20 kts trades leaving the heavy one in their wake ok, is up to you..

Why the serious stuff happen in the way back? Azores? ask yourself why?

Okay, I think many others in this debate have asserted (very often) that crossing an ocean is somewhat serious, definitely considered "blue water sailing". But I suppose we all have different standards. You are welcome to yours.

In any case, that Jeanneau I pointed out did the ARC for 5 years running - which means it had to go back 5 years running. That's a lot of bluewater sailing - even in your "serious stuff" on the way back. Meltemi, a Beneteau Oceanis 54, did the same thing in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Impressive, eh?

[transmitterdan]

Here is YALOBWB (yet another list of blue water boats). No Hunters and one Beneteau. His comments are pretty much right at least for the few boats in the list I have looked at. It covers a huge gamut in price and size.

John Kretschmer Sailing - Bluewater Boats

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Here is YALOBWB (yet another list of blue water boats). No Hunters and one Beneteau. His comments are pretty much right at least for the few boats in the list I have looked at. It covers a huge gamut in price and size.

John Kretschmer Sailing - Bluewater Boats

No other mass-production boats listed, but also no Bristol's. Kretschmer must be an absolute ZERO when it comes to credentials.

The one Bene that is listed is a First series. Among the high accolades, the author also says

"this sleek cruiser shares a name with today's Beneteaus and little else."