The Yard Guys

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is why it's hard to take most of your comments seriously.

This is why its hard to understand, if a small boat is rated for sailing magazines, sailing tests, and even the builder as a coastal sailing boat , how the hell can get a A rate? because he can sustain f8 and 4 meter seas?? who actually made the calculations for that , in other words is the boat sailed in those conditions? its the NA calculations enough to claim the boat can survive a serious gale in the ocean? really??

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

This why its hard to understand, if a small boat is rated for sailing magazines, sailing tests, and even the builder as a coastal sailing boat , how the hell can get a A rate? because he can sustain f8 and 4 meter seas?? who actually made the calculations for that , in other words is the boat sailed in those conditions? its the NA calculations enough to claim the boat can survive a serious gale in the ocean? really??

That is easy to understand: the boat was subjected for certification and passed the demands and criteria. I find it odd. I know that better boats that had to do a lot of effort to pass that certification, including a carbon mast in one case (to lower CG) and unsinkable on the other (that gives a bonus). Maybe what I have said first, a very "optimistic" stability curve.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

+1 Like i say before , the RCD ISO its a joke inside of a Circus!!
So basically the Delphia enjoy a rate A and a Nauticat 38 enjoy a rate B, i wonder if Delphia use a In house NA??

By the way,the new Marlow Hunter 31 is rated A to, i guess he pass the AVS test , so basically if a cork of 20 something feet in lenght with enough stability and a roof to let the crew hide in case of bad weather is candidate to be rated A.
Rate A , they dont rate the strenght of the hull or rigging, its all based in stability?? just asking....

I can understand why the Nauticat 38 is not a class A design but have some doubts in understanding how the Delhia 33 passed the certification

The design ( Andrzej Skrzat) is incomparably better than the one of the Nauticat but even if it has a nice keel, it does not look like a high efficiency one (don't look a bulbed one to me) and the B/D ratio (26%) is almost as bad as the one on the one on the Nauticat, considering the better hull CG on the Delphia and a bulbed keel. Probably a limit acceptable stability on a bigger boat but one that should not be acceptable by the RCD criteria. Something fishy here.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

AHAA!

Now we are getting down to a point I tried to raise many, many post ago: Who actually assigns the ratings, and exactly what criteria are used?

Now Pollux admits that the judgements are based on data supplied by the manufacturer, not on measurements made by the NAs and NEs from the RCD that he was on about. And this seems to have meant that a boat that he, Pollux, thinks is not suitable for class A has in fact been granted that exalted rating. Apparently the manufacturer's NA can use whatever model he wishes to generate the critical numbers for a vessel, and the result is obvious here.

If it can happen once, it can happen with any design submitted. Why should any of us believe strongly in the rating system?

Please note that I am not attacking any specific design of boat or means of construction. I am questioning the usefulness of the rating system.

Jim

No Jim, the data is supplied by the manufacturer but the calculations and all the data are from the Na that designed the boat and accepted by them as good. The NA is responsible for the correctness of those calculations and all elements that are provided and signs a document that makes him responsible for that correctness.

That is not a different than on other regulated similar situations: For example a civil engineer makes the calculations for a building in accordance with the rules and "scantlings" approved by law and deliver them with the Architecture project at the town house, at the technical cabinet that is responsible for verifying the conformity with the rules (or in some countries, like on the boats, to a certifying independent body). They are going to verify if it complies but are not going to remake the calculations made by the engineer. That would be impossible due to the number of projects. The word of the engineer that is formally bidden by a signed document that makes him responsible by the exactness of those calculations. In what regards boats it is not different.

What I have said is that different NA use different softwares for calculation of stability curves and I am not sure there is an approved criteria regarding how it is done correctly. It is not the first time that I have saw stability curves that looked to me too optimistic and even the opposite, stability curves that looked worse than what they should be. I believe that the criteria for class A is a sound one but that something should be made regarding a mandatory software (equal for all) and a protocol for determination the stability curve, one that should be the same for all NA.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

This sounds like a label that's serious overkill as well, unless you're doing the kind of sailing Beth & Evans have done, or the folks on Morgan's Cloud who enjoy extreme high latitude sailing. Then again, you don't have to be crossing the N. Atlantic every year to desire a solidly built boat from a mfg. with a good reputation. Sailing to the Caribbean from the US e. coast in early Nov. -- a common passage for many -- is around 10 days of open ocean sailing, the first part of which can entail running the gauntlet of unpredictable & often poorly forecasted N. Atlantic gales as well as crossing the gulf stream. Under these conditions, I'd welcome being on a voyaging boat, expedition boat, or any other well-built boat, just so long as it doesn't come apart on me.

Just like there may be a misperception about whether modern, mass-produced boats are able to cross oceans, I think there's also a misperception that heavier-built, traditional boats are slow, cumbersome, and don't perform well. Certainly true for some that we used to call the "2 kts. fwd., 4 kts. sideways boats", but this is another one of those stereotypes for the uninformed & inexperienced. My 47' Bristol, for example, weighs 20 tons, has a thick, heavy, non-cored hull, a 42% B/D ratio, but a PHRF of 115 (I found it on the internet so it must be true). It was originally designed & built for the Newport-Bermuda races, in an era where seakindliness was almost as favored as seaworthiness. There are many other examples of traditional boats on both ends of the performance spectrum and everywhere in-between.

My only point is, just like Smack cautions against automatically removing from consideration a Hunter/Bene/Catalina, etc. because they are all incapable of crossing oceans, let's not lump all the more traditional boats into the slow & ponderous category. At the same time, there are some of us who would prefer to have ourselves & families in something more solid & reputable in any part of the ocean and in any conditions, both for safety and enjoyment.

That is all very well regarding for instance the seaworthiness of a Oceanis 48 and a XC 50, but given your old boat as an example spoils everything and since it was you that are comparing an old Bristol 47.7 with a new Beneteau....: You have a new mast on your boat, a new engine, new rigging, all systems new or at least 5 or 6 years old as it happens on a fairly recent boat? Do still have the 30 year old mast? If the systems, rig, rudder and everything else on your boat are old and if that Beneteau is a recent boat, you will risk to have much more failures and breakage than on that Oceanis 48.

Is this what you were comparing wasn't it? The performance of your old boat with a recent Oceanis of about the same size?

Regarding stability you are wrong if you think your boat is more stiff or powerful than the Oceanis 48 and regarding speed there is a huge difference, the PHRF of the 49 is 75, the 48 should have about the same. The Beneteau 48 75 PHRF compared with the 115 PHRF from the Bristol is a HUGE difference. The Beneteau will be incomparably faster.



Regarding stability, probably The Bristol 47.7 43% of B/D ratio on a 1.5m draft keel will not be a match in what regards ratio to the 32% on the Beneteau 40, considering this one has it almost all on a bulb at the end of a 1.96m keel and the difference in form stability provided by the two hulls will be simply huge. Incomparably bigger on the Beneteau, that will not be only much more faster but also more stable and more powerful.

Given the two, even if the two were brand new boats I would chose without hesitation the Beneteau 48. The Bristol could have more wood, a better quality on the interiors, a better build, but it is simply obsolete compared with the Beneteau 48. it is like choosing between a new Cadillac from the late 70's and a contemporary Volkswagen of about the same size. I believe very few would chose the old model new Cadillac over a new VW.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is all very well regarding for instance the seaworthiness of a Oceanis 48 and a XC 50, but given your old boat as an example spoils everything and since it was you that are comparing an old Bristol 47.7 with a new Beneteau....: You have a new mast on your boat, a new engine, new rigging, all systems new or at least 5 or 6 years old as it happens on a fairly recent boat? Do still have the 30 year old mast? If the systems, rig, rudder and everything else on your boat are old and if that Beneteau is a recent boat, you will risk to have much more failures and breakage than on that Oceanis 48.

Is this what you were comparing wasn't it? The performance of your old boat with a recent Oceanis of about the same size?

Regarding stability you are wrong if you think your boat is more stiff or powerful than the Oceanis 48 and regarding speed there is a huge difference, the PHRF of the 49 is 75, the 48 should have about the same. The Beneteau 48 75 PHRF compared with the 115 PHRF from the Bristol is a HUGE difference. The Beneteau will be incomparably faster.
...

Regarding stability, probably The Bristol 47.7 43% of B/D ratio on a 1.5m draft keel will not be a match in what regards ratio to the 32% on the Beneteau 40, considering this one has it almost all on a bulb at the end of a 1.96m keel and the difference in form stability provided by the two hulls will be simply huge. Incomparably bigger on the Beneteau, that will not be only much more faster but also more stable and more powerful.

Given the two, even if the two were brand new boats I would chose without hesitation the Beneteau 48. The Bristol could have more wood, a better quality on the interiors, a better build, but it is simply obsolete compared with the Beneteau 48. it is like choosing between a new Cadillac from the late 70's and a contemporary Volkswagen of about the same size. I believe very few would chose the old model new Cadillac over a new VW.
...

Don't you find it interesting though, that virtually all of the 'yard guys' will pick the older boats over the newer ones. That, BTW, includes my 'yard guys' doing my bottom job, some other maintenance and my rigger, who also happens to be a friend.

I wonder what they know, that some are missing? After all, they see more boats, and their strengths and weaknesses, than most will see in a lifetime during a year's worth of work. I think it is fortunate we have some very credible and experienced 'yard guys on this forum, who have over time brought a wealth of knowledge to us.

Perhaps it is best summed up that here are certain design elements that have been proven and tested over time. Innovations are slow in being accepted, mostly because that test of time can only be accomplished in one way, and the adage of not fixing what ain't broke goes a long way, when safety at sea is considered. All other considerations should be secondary. My emphasis is on should be, as it is clear that the market, although giving lip service to safety, really is interested in other things. Comfort at dock (which is different than comfort at sea), space, openness, speed for some, a 'modern' look etc. etc. Most of those are not safety related, but certainly are related to the eye candy appeal that is so successful in marketing.

It is the difference between left brain and right brain thinking. Who is to say who is right? Many of the traditional builders are defunct, and those that build to the market are, if not thriving, at least viable. That doesn't make their boats better, it just makes their business model more successful.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is all very well regarding for instance the seaworthiness of a Oceanis 48 and a XC 50, but given your old boat as an example spoils everything and since it was you that are comparing an old Bristol 47.7 with a new Beneteau....: You have a new mast on your boat, a new engine, new rigging, all systems new or at least 5 or 6 years old as it happens on a fairly recent boat? Do still have the 30 year old mast? If the systems, rig, rudder and everything else on your boat are old and if that Beneteau is a recent boat, you will risk to have much more failures and breakage than on that Oceanis 48.

Is this what you were comparing wasn't it? The performance of your old boat with a recent Oceanis of about the same size?

Regarding stability you are wrong if you think your boat is more stiff or powerful than the Oceanis 48 and regarding speed there is a huge difference, the PHRF of the 49 is 75, the 48 should have about the same. The Beneteau 48 75 PHRF compared with the 115 PHRF from the Bristol is a HUGE difference. The Beneteau will be incomparably faster.



Regarding stability, probably The Bristol 47.7 43% of B/D ratio on a 1.5m draft keel will not be a match in what regards ratio to the 32% on the Beneteau 40, considering this one has it almost all on a bulb at the end of a 1.96m keel and the difference in form stability provided by the two hulls will be simply huge. Incomparably bigger on the Beneteau, that will not be only much more faster but also more stable and more powerful.

Given the two, even if the two were brand new boats I would chose without hesitation the Beneteau 48. The Bristol could have more wood, a better quality on the interiors, a better build, but it is simply obsolete compared with the Beneteau 48. it is like choosing between a new Cadillac from the late 70's and a contemporary Volkswagen of about the same size. I believe very few would chose the old model new Cadillac over a new VW.

Nope, it wasn't me comparing my old Bristol to a modern Beneteau. Just wanted to disabuse those with the notion that if they opt for an older traditional boat vs. a modern one they necessarily have to sacrifice performance, however they define that. Personally, I could care less how fast my boat may go compared to an Oceanis 48. The Bene has a much longer waterline for starters, but with the trade-off of a plumb bow & little if no overhang for seakindliness and, in my subjective opinion, an unpleasant looking sheer line. My boat will easily & routinely get up to hull speed in as little as 14 kts. of true wind on a close reach, will point as close as 35 degs. apparent with modest winds & reasonably calm seas, and tracks like a freight train on all points of sail, incl. downwind. I must confess it does seem to appreciate at least 10 kts. of wind to get her moving, however!

I'm not even that old or curmudgeonly (yet), but I much prefer having my keel as an integral part of my hull as opposed to an appendage held on by bolts, and appreciate that this keel will achieve the performance I've described with only 5' hanging below the waterline. There is no heavy football filled with lead that is attached to the end of a large, lightweight lever should I run aground (I have!), and the rudder is double-hung with a large, solid bronze post which shows no signs of play or unusual movement. (Bronze is what archaeologists are still finding on the bottom of the ocean hundreds of years later, right?).

When you start off with high quality, maintain & upgrade as needed, boats like this are timeless. But again, I intend to keep her for hopefully the rest of my life, and I'm someone who appreciates hand craftsmanship, fine joinery work, and I actually like varnishing! (I know, I know, don't say it). I also appreciate owning & sailing a fine example from an era of American yacht building that has almost disappeared.

For me, there's more to owning a yacht than being able to talk about how little you may have paid for it or how "fast" it goes. (Unless it's an Open 60, aren't we talkin' the diffence b'twn "slow" & "really slow"??). And I prefer discussing where I might safely & enjoyably sail to next vs. how "fast" I might get there. But my racing has been on two wheels with at least a 3:1 power/wgt. ratio, so "racing" a slow-moving vessel around some buoys has just never done it for me.

But hey, this is just me. To each his own!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Don't you find it interesting though, that virtually all of the 'yard guys' will pick the older boats over the newer ones.

Again, I think the answer to that is more complex than you're trying to make it.

First, I don't know a lot of yard guys who are able to drop $400K-$2M+ on a brand new boat. So, of course, they will be buying an "old boat". Second, because of their very job, they will have incredible knowledge and resources (and "cheap" labor and parts, etc.) at their disposal to take that old boat MUCH farther than any newb EVER could. They can buy an older boat, "cheap", that is in rougher shape and bring a tremendous amount of value back to it by their work. Just look at what Minaret did with his boat.

Third, and most importantly, if this is the route someone is going to take, then the "heavily built, 'highly-regarded' blue-water brand" makes the most sense in terms of investment of that time and money. It's like real estate in that regard...with the brand being "location".

So, if I were a yard guy, this is EXACTLY what I'd do too. No doubt. It makes the most sense based on the investment of time and money. I definitely wouldn't be buying an old Hunter or Beneteau.

Of course, all of this has very little to do with whether a production boat (like a Hunter or Beneteau) is suitable for off-shore cruising. It's a completely different equation.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by avb3

Don't you find it interesting though, that virtually all of the 'yard guys' will pick the older boats over the newer ones. That, BTW, includes my 'yard guys' doing my bottom job, some other maintenance and my rigger, who also happens to be a friend.

I wonder what they know, that some are missing? After all, they see more boats, and their strengths and weaknesses, than most will see in a lifetime during a year's worth of work. I think it is fortunate we have some very credible and experienced 'yard guys on this forum, who have over time brought a wealth of knowledge to us.

Perhaps it is best summed up that here are certain design elements that have been proven and tested over time. Innovations are slow in being accepted, mostly because that test of time can only be accomplished in one way, and the adage of not fixing what ain't broke goes a long way, when safety at sea is considered. All other considerations should be secondary. My emphasis is on should be, as it is clear that the market, although giving lip service to safety, really is interested in other things. Comfort at dock (which is different than comfort at sea), space, openness, speed for some, a 'modern' look etc. etc. Most of those are not safety related, but certainly are related to the eye candy appeal that is so successful in marketing.

It is the difference between left brain and right brain thinking. Who is to say who is right? Many of the traditional builders are defunct, and those that build to the market are, if not thriving, at least viable. That doesn't make their boats better, it just makes their business model more successful.

Absolutely, the comments in this side of the town are basically the same, from the riggers to the electricians, we dont have many old boats visiting the facilites, hell i cant remember the last Vagabond docked here, they are mostly WPB from the 90`s 2000 and in between 2012 2011. Beneteaus, Jeaneaus, Dufours, and lots of catas.. by the way yesterday i visit a old beneteau first 456 and i fell in love with the boat, very sturdy construction , nothing like today standars , and beautiful hull lines..

If i ever need to rate a beneteau i put this 456 in the top of my list.

For Pólux , its clear its more interested in speed and those dizzy numbers
B/D ratio AVS, and more ratios, something i dont give a crap, sincerely im ok with a decent AVS and a sturdy hull, rig, rudder and keel, even if is a Beneteau. I let those ratios and speed comparisons for the racing dudes.
Its kinda black and White this dude , we are technicolor.. If speed is the only thing important and those dam ratios then do yourself a favor and take a jet.

Cruising its something else...

And honestly i take that Bristol 47 anytime , anywhere, if is in good condition, whats the problem with a 30 years old mast? i can guarantee to you that the bristol sport a mast 100 times better in quality compared with the Zspar or selden in the beneteau.

We have a client with a old privilege , Marichal made the original spar, its absoluty made to last and top quality, not like the typical junk we found this days in many new boats, take for granted , in the Marichal the mast plates or tangs for the cap shrouds have a ss sheave or bushing for the togle pins, in a new Lagoon the pin work in contact with the aluminium in the plate. just saying... without mention that almost the 80 % of masts coming from the low spectrum in production boats are riveted to the extreme, goseneck riveted , cleats riveted, mast steps riveted, i let you guess whats my favorite job after the ARC in the rigging shop....

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

If i ever need to rate a beneteau i put this 456 in the top of my list.

CLOSE THE THREAD! NEIL LIKES A BENE!!!!!!!

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Again, I think the answer to that is more complex than you're trying to make it.

First, I don't know a lot of yard guys who are able to drop $400K-$2M+ on a brand new boat. So, of course, they will be buying an "old boat". Second, because of their very job, they will have incredible knowledge and resources (and "cheap" labor and parts, etc.) at their disposal to take that old boat MUCH farther than any newb EVER could. They can buy an older boat, "cheap", that is in rougher shape and bring a tremendous amount of value back to it by their work. Just look at what Minaret did with his boat.

Third, and most importantly, if this is the route someone is going to take, then the "heavily built, 'highly-regarded' blue-water brand" makes the most sense in terms of investment of that time and money. It's like real estate in that regard...with the brand being "location".

So, if I were a yard guy, this is EXACTLY what I'd do too. No doubt. It makes the most sense based on the investment of time and money. I definitely wouldn't be buying an old Hunter or Beneteau.

Of course, all of this has very little to do with whether a production boat (like a Hunter or Beneteau) is suitable for off-shore cruising. It's a completely different equation.

Sorry Sr, but this is BS, get out and visit some boatyards , if you mean Yard Guy with the typical Antifouling dusty boy you are wrong, here all the techs own a boat or 2, my partner , a rigger have a Bene 50, the FG shop boss own 2 catamarans, a mechanic from Volvo dealer own a beatiful Trimaran, If they have the chance to buy cheaper boats new or old its another history, i can tell you something, working day by day fixing things in other boats and you end doing nothing or litle in your own boat, thats why Minaret refit its hats off.

[neilpride]

Yeah, i dont have to much time to investigate in the 456 but my first impresión its really good, i like the 456 ...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Sorry Sr, but this is BS, get out and visit some boatyards , if you mean Yard Guy with the typical Antifouling dusty boy you are wrong, here all the techs own a boat or 2, my partner , a rigger have a Bene 50, the FG shop boss own 2 catamarans, a mechanic from Volvo dealer own a beatiful Trimaran, If they have the chance to buy cheaper boats new or old its another history, i can tell you something, working day by day fixing things in other boats and you end doing nothing or litle in your own boat, thats why Minaret refit its hats off.

Cool! I'm glad to see that your yard guy friends own production boats and multis.

And I totally agree about the hats off to Mina.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Yeah, i dont have to much time to investigate in the 456 but my first impresión its really good, i like the 456 ...

It is cool. Looks like my Hunter!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

CLOSE THE THREAD! NEIL LIKES A BENE!!!!!!!

But you notice, it's an OLD Bene.

He must be a yard guy.