The Yard Guys

[neilpride]

Thats exactly the point, if they claim the boat can last a generation for sure the boat is really well put together, i see 20 something years old boats in really nice condition, even more than 30, all depend on how well are maintained, hull lifespan in many of this boats are infinite...

[transmitterdan]

Smack,

I think you are finally back on the right track. But you have misrepresented a bit the typical advice I have seen ladled out to newbies. No newbie is ever told to buy any ol boat from a "list" sight unseen and head offshore. They are told to get a survey, don't buy a "project boat", get experience sailing with others, make short trips to gain self confidence, blah blah blah. Most are told not to get a blue water boat until they own a less expensive boat and learn for themselves what they really like and don't like. To characterize the typical advice given on forums as "dangerous" is disingenuous and false.

It's still true today that for the same money you can get an older blue water boat that is "better" than a new production boat. There are fewer of them today and will be fewer still as the years go on. Eventually the old boats will become equal to and then inferior to new production boats. But that day is not here no matter how much you wish it to be so.

[Exile]

When I was looking to buy my used boat a knowledgeable friend advised that "you're essentially just buying a 'hull' since most of the components have already worn out or will do so soon." A bit exaggerated, but a good way to look at it, and it's proven itself correct to a large degree. On well built fg boats, however, I don't think the hulls are one of those components that a buyer would have to worry about because of too many cycles or whatever. It's just everything attached/fastened/glued/pinned or otherwise affixed that's worrisome!

I also don't think reputations for build quality between different mfgs. -- old & new/good & bad -- simply develop with no foundation. They can certainly be exaggerated, and are definitely subject to individual bias, taste, preference, etc. But when you try and look at it more objectively, the reputations are usually out there for valid reasons. For better or worse, the conclusions we then may make are our own.

[transmitterdan]

To a large extent I agree that reputations are largely deserved. But some reputations are based on old data. The reputation of brand names are one of the hardest things to change (either up or down) and sometimes lag reality by years or decades. This is exactly why I worry about some of the construction techniques used in some of the recent failures. If these failures had happened on the first boat produced by a new builder and new NA there would be a hue and cry of bad design/construction/quality/blah blah. To wit the Alpha 42 that was lost a while back.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

When did they move some of its production to US?

The Beneteau USA plant ( Marion, SC) opened in 1986.

[Exile]

The cry I often hear is that the modern boats produced for the charter industry are only designed to last for the 3-4 years it will be in charter service. "Planned obsolescence" & all that. Obviously an exaggeration, but even Smack admits they may be built for a lesser number of "cycles" than boats with a rep for higher build quality. Not necessarily a bad thing, unless it's based on the 90+% that sit at the dock or don't venture far.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Smack,

I think you are finally back on the right track. But you have misrepresented a bit the typical advice I have seen ladled out to newbies. No newbie is ever told to buy any ol boat from a "list" sight unseen and head offshore.

Of course not. But the search typically begins with "the (aging) lists". Trust me. I know. That's where I started when I was looking - based on the advice I got in forums (and the advice still being given here).

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

They are told to get a survey, don't buy a "project boat", get experience sailing with others, make short trips to gain self confidence, blah blah blah. Most are told not to get a blue water boat until they own a less expensive boat and learn for themselves what they really like and don't like. To characterize the typical advice given on forums as "dangerous" is disingenuous and false.

Actually, no it's not. When you put a newbie sailor into an old, out-of-production boat you introduce an entirely new set, a HUGE set, of problems than simply learning to sail offshore.

As has been said many times by very, very knowledgeable people (MaineSail to name just one) - finding an old boat that has been truly taken care of to the level necessary to be ready to set sail is extremely rare...and very expensive. Newbies aren't ready for that level of discernment - survey or no survey.

So, inexperience + a false sense of security + a tired old boat = SAR. Does that ring a bell on any news stories you've heard lately?

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It's still true today that for the same money you can get an older blue water boat that is "better" than a new production boat. There are fewer of them today and will be fewer still as the years go on. Eventually the old boats will become equal to and then inferior to new production boats. But that day is not here no matter how much you wish it to be so.

That's just not true - at least not depending on the price range you're looking at. You obviously haven't done many boat searches lately.

As I wrote in my blog, when I started my own searching I was looking for a Valiant, Pacific Seacraft, Moody, Passport, Bristol, Hinckley, Morris, etc. The quality boats.

BUT, I wanted to pay cash for my boat. So my personal price limit was $70K. And I didn't want anything over 30 years old. Here's my YW search:

LINK

Click the "more" link under Manufacturer. Surprise, surprise - no Valiant, no Pacific Seacraft, no Moody, no Passport, no Hinckley, no Morris, etc.

Yes, 3-4 Bristols. But seriously not my style. Several Pearsons - a bit closer to what I wanted but still not excited.

So, how many of John Neal's boats can you find in this list that you would recommend to this newb of yours?

While doing so - look at the all the production boats. For the same price - MUCH newer, MUCH bigger selection, MUCH easier to find boats that have been very lightly sailed (very low cycles), etc.

Now, keep upping the maximum price in the search until you start seeing the boats on your list that look like the kind of boat this newb should buy - then again compare with the production boats.

For example, at $100K you get an Alberg, more Bristols, a few Pacific Seacraft - all pretty ancient. But you also get lots of very nice production boats that are only 5-7 years old.

Go a little higher and you start to see some of these older higher-end brands, but you're also now into brand new production boats with warranties. Just do the math.

So, no, you might like to believe what you typed - but it's not true...depending on how you define "better". In other words, if your idea of "better" only means "it's on the list" - you just have a different sense of better than most.

[colemj]

The best materials are combined with traditional construction practices-like a through-bolted hull/deck joint

Is this the best they can do? Our production boat hull/deck joint was put together with Plexus (really) and the entire joint glassed inside and out. There are some screws going through it, but those are for attaching the rubrail - not for strength of the joint.

Every boat I have owned with through-bolted joints has leaked. Give me our current type of joint any day - 16yrs without a leak and no known reported leaks on any of the boats built (no failures either).

While through bolting may be traditional, I don't think it is remotely the best way to do a joint, and I think they have gone cheap here.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

I also don't think reputations for build quality between different mfgs. -- old & new/good & bad -- simply develop with no foundation. They can certainly be exaggerated, and are definitely subject to individual bias, taste, preference, etc. But when you try and look at it more objectively, the reputations are usually out there for valid reasons. For better or worse, the conclusions we then may make are our own.

Generally, I agree with this part. The problem I have with it is that, even from the yard guys, the statements I've seen are typically based on comparisons against older boats (boats they often own themselves). In other words, when they say "that BeneHunterLina with its 'Ikea' furniture and liner is woefully underbuilt"...what exactly do they mean?

If they are comparing the BHL to a 40 year-old tank? Sure. I can see exactly what they mean. "Underbuilt" means it's not nearly as robust as the tank. But, "underbuilt" doesn't at all mean that the BHL is not fit to sail offshore. Yet that's the conclusion that many immediately jump to.

Again, that yard guy himself may hold that HE would never sail one offshore (because it's not built like his own tank which he uses as the standard) - but there are plenty of those BHLs out there doing just that.

So, I think you just have to be very clear with the criticism. That's why the photos are valuable. It gives people specific things to look for in a boat. Not just generalizations that don't hold up.

[transmitterdan]

You can't buy a ready to sail off shore boat that is built for serious weather for $70K new, old or anything in between. No amount of wishing will make it so.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You can't buy a ready to sail off shore boat that is built for serious weather for $70K new, old or anything in between. No amount of wishing will make it so.

Okay - so what's the starting point price-wise? And also, how do you define "serious weather"?

Maybe you could set up a YachtWorld search that newbs should start with. That would be helpful.

[neilpride]

From 150.000u$ up you can start to get nice options! for less maybe...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Generally, I agree with this part. The problem I have with it is that, even from the yard guys, the statements I've seen are typically based on comparisons against older boats (boats they often own themselves). In other words, when they say "that BeneHunterLina with its 'Ikea' furniture and liner is woefully underbuilt"...what exactly do they mean?

If they are comparing the BHL to a 40 year-old tank? Sure. I can see exactly what they mean. "Underbuilt" means it's not nearly as robust as the tank. But, "underbuilt" doesn't at all mean that the BHL is not fit to sail offshore. Yet that's the conclusion that many immediately jump to.

Again, that yard guy himself may hold that HE would never sail one offshore (because it's not built like his own tank which he uses as the standard) - but there are plenty of those BHLs out there doing just that.

So, I think you just have to be very clear with the criticism. That's why the photos are valuable. It gives people specific things to look for in a boat. Not just generalizations that don't hold up.

I think you're being a bit overly sensitive here. I've worked with a number of experienced & talented technicians over the years, and a couple of them have crewed with me and we've become friends. I've rarely heard generalized statements broadly impugning an entire category of boats based on specific build quality issues they've had to deal with. Yes, NP said something to the effect of Bene wanting to intentionally sink people, but I can't imagine he intended for anyone to take that seriously. As a pro, he was obviously frustrated & concerned about the Plexus bulkhead & the rudder deal. The most universal complaints I hear is about poorly designed access issues, but that's obviously not confined to certain types of boats.

It's only natural as well as prudent to try and determine whether a serious problem is due to age, lack of maintenance, or poor design or construction to begin with. This may be accentuated, of course, on mass-produced boats because so much of the cost savings comes from having consistent & uniform build practices, often on an assembly line.

Of course, one time I had a tech tell me -- probably in frustration -- that maybe Bristol's didn't deserve such a good rep. Fortunately, it didn't have anything to do with basic structural components (electrical issue), and no, I was not offended!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You can't buy a ready to sail off shore boat that is built for serious weather for $70K new, old or anything in between. No amount of wishing will make it so.

I'm glad you said it and not me! But I do think this explains a lot.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You can't buy a ready to sail off shore boat that is built for serious weather for $70K new, old or anything in between. No amount of wishing will make it so.

Sooo incorrect. I'm not going to harp about my boat since that would be self-serving but will briefly describe my friend's boat. My own boat, Mariner 36, at the time of pre-purchase survey and inspection by three different marine pros with long resumes was pronounced fully offshore capable but in need of certain modifications/upgrades due to its components age (such as rigging, sails, etc.) which would bring the total cost of initial price plus getting her offshore ready to about $50K give or take a few grand.

Of course at the time my friend bought his current boat, 10 years ago, he was already a marine pro with decades of all kind of experience including int'l offshore competition among another things. That helped. He found the boat, a Dubois 46, originally built in late 70s-early 80s for Admiral Cup entry, on the hard, neglected and with a blown engine. She was donated by her previous owner and sat in the yard for few years collecting dust and yard fees. The yard let her go for under $10K. My friend found almost new 75HP tractor Yanni 1,000 miles away for $7K, brought it to the boat, marinized it (for about $500 in parts and few hours of his own labor) and installed it. He got some used sails for total of $3-5K and spend a few hundreds cutting them to size. He did a lot of other mostly cosmetic work and modifications which are not really part of the issue of seaworthiness and are not counted here by me, but in 2mos the boat was offshore ready for way under $50K, more like around $20K. It was built incredibly well and strong by a team of Kiwi builders in England and is still quite a sailor 30+ years after its launch. I did a couple of FL to MA runs with him and just on my watch the GPS was showing steady 12-14kts with 16kt peaks off of a wave. Granted some of it was the Gulfstream's kick but still even "only" 10-12kts for a 1980 boat is not bad. We did 1250nm from FLL to the Cape Canal via about 150-200nm offshore and were at the entrance on the 5th day averaging 220-240nm a day. Not bad for a $20K boat.