Amel 50 - I want one...

geem said:
I noticed walking around the yard here in Curacao how many boats seem to have new saildrives or holes in the bottom where the saildrive was. Presumably they are being repaired or replaced.
Click to expand...

My 450 had the SD50 saildrives. One saildrive started slipping while I was trying to catch a mooring ball in a crowded field on a windy day in Tonga. There was no Anchorage there. It's a long story but after I went in circles few times we managed to tie up without hitting anything. I got them working again with the help of another cruiser. But, that was unacceptable for me as they could have started slipping while I was entering a tricky atol. So, they got replaced with the new SD60. They were fine for 2 seasons and then I sold the boat. I now hear that the SD60s have slipping problems too...

When I pay for something that my life depends on, I expect it to work. I don't think that's too much to ask. So, I don't trust saildrives and I don't want them.
 
Boom23 said:
I've considered most quality brands like Discovery, HR, Oyster, Najad, XC50, etc. They all have their pros and cons. For instance, I wanted an easy to maintain boat, which means no exterior wood. All of the above boats have full teak decks. I like the look of teak but I don't want to maintain it.

Also, I have been in bad weather in S. Pacific and New Zealand with my, just sold, Lagoon 450. I treasure weather protection at helm. Most times I used autopilot but when it got really bad, I had to take over control. I don't want ,myself or my wife, to be exposed to cold rain and waves. It is miserable. Only the Amel has protected helm area.

Other cons (for me):
Discovery - multiple levels inside, steps everywhere. Older hull design. They don't seem to hold their value well. Few used 55s available.
HR - Didn't like the most common forward stateroom arrangement. Few used 54s available.
Oyster - Too expensive, older hull design. Don't like the round settees on 56 or huge salon table on 54.
Najad - Expensive. Few used boats. Small hull windows.
XC50 - Doesn't have stern master in 3 stateroom version. I don't believe it comes with in-mast furling. I want to be able to single hand in bad weather.

The Amel tics way more boxes, for me, than the brands above. Again, everyone has different requirements. For me, the Amel 50 is closer to perfect than any other boat.
Click to expand...

Re the alternatives, sure the majority of shipped boats have full teak deck, but some of them at least this is now an option and can stick with full GRP decks (eg the XC).

Also the XC (like many Oysters) doesn’t offer in mast furling - because if offers in boom furling instead. The reasons apparently being
- better performance - as can still have horizontal battens and full mainsail roach; and
- safety - if anything jams with the reefing can still drop the sail and just put sail ties round the boom.

All theoretical for me as not in this wealth band, but for me the inside and offset wheel would be a complete showstopper for an Amel. May have made sense 25 years ago but I would argue not now:
- twin wheels (like most of the alternatives Oyster, HR, XC have) are much better for when you actually do want to hand steer - champagne sailing, watching the luff of the jib or asymmetric, or in harbour manoeuvring. Internal offset wheel would be useless.
- when on passage in wet / cold weather will be under autopilot anyway these days. Modern autopilots can handle racing through southern oceans so should be able to handle any cruising we want to do
 
dunedin said:
Re the alternatives, sure the majority of shipped boats have full teak deck, but some of them at least this is now an option and can stick with full GRP decks (eg the XC).

Also the XC (like many Oysters) doesn’t offer in mast furling - because if offers in boom furling instead. The reasons apparently being
- better performance - as can still have horizontal battens and full mainsail roach; and
- safety - if anything jams with the reefing can still drop the sail and just put sail ties round the boom.

All theoretical for me as not in this wealth band, but for me the inside and offset wheel would be a complete showstopper for an Amel. May have made sense 25 years ago but I would argue not now:
- twin wheels (like most of the alternatives Oyster, HR, XC have) are much better for when you actually do want to hand steer - champagne sailing, watching the luff of the jib or asymmetric, or in harbour manoeuvring. Internal offset wheel would be useless.
- when on passage in wet / cold weather will be under autopilot anyway these days. Modern autopilots can handle racing through southern oceans so should be able to handle any cruising we want to do
Click to expand...

Like I say, to each his own. For me, the Amel cockpit is ideal. I test sailed the 50 and I've owned many boats.

Regarding autopilots, I agree. Most sailing is done with autopilot but you still have to be out there when the weather goes bad. One of the best additions to my 450 was the full flybridge enclosure. Spend a season in New Zealand and you'll see what I mean.

Regarding boom furlers, why aren't they more popular than in-mast furling? If they are that much better, what's wrong?
I've tried in-mast furling on Beneteau's and it's great! Amel has perfected the system. The Amel mast is a piece of, functional, art. Incredible piece of engineering.
 
Sybarite said:
I would choose the Amel 50, but, if I were looking for a multi this is what I would choose (20% faster than the average cruising cat) :

http://www.neel-trimarans.com/fr/modele_bateau/neel-51/
Click to expand...

Neels are interesting. I don't know if they resolved their quality problems. By the way, after what I saw, I will never buy a boat without visiting the factory first. Brochures tell a completely different story.

Neels seem to focus more on speed. My focus is more on quality, comfort, ease of maintenance.

Speaking of ease of maintenance, the Amel 50 engine room is simply amazing! I couldn't stop grinning when I got in there. Again, a lot of thought was put into it. As an engineer, I really appreciate that. As a cruiser, it makes my life much easier.
 
Last edited:
Boom23 said:
Neels are interesting. I don't know if they resolved their quality problems. By the way, after what I saw, I will never buy a boat without visiting the factory first. Brochures tell a completely different story.

Neels seem to focus more on speed. My focus is more on quality, comfort, ease of maintenance.

Speaking of ease of maintenance, the Amel 50 engine room is simply amazing! I couldn't stop grinning when I got in there. Again, a lot of thought was put into it. As an engineer, I really appreciate that. As a cruiser, it makes my life much easier.
Click to expand...

In the Neel virtually the whole central hull is the engine room.
 
Boom23 said:
I just visited the Amel factory. I'm looking for a monohull around 50-55ft and the Amel philosophy is very appealing to me. So, I wanted to see the build quality and compare the new 50 to the 55. I also visited 3 more factories, which build boats in similar or higher price range, in France, which i will not name, to compare. I'm an engineer by training and I like to see how things are built.

From what I saw, nothing compares to the Amel quality and attention to detail. Their boats are built to perform and last. It is a slow building process but the results justify it. Everything that goes on an Amel, is scrutinized and has to be of very high quality.

The other factories I visited were either unorganized and sloppy or were focusing on lowering build time and cost. They either scared me or left me wanting a better quality boat for the money.

Back to Amel, I test sailed the 50. Absolutely beautiful boat. It's not perfect, no boat is, but the Amel people like criticism and they are actually acting on it, which is very refreshing to see in a company. Again, the boat was built like a tank. Not a single creak in the boat and this was hull number 1. Everything was as working as it should be or was getting improved. I was blown away. On top of that, my wife loved the boat too. Her reasons were different but I wanted her to see the boat with a different eye. I couldn't be happier!

I also liked the 55 but my wife did not. She found it smaller and more cramped than the 50. I think Amel should move the galley where the skippers bunk is on the starboard and make the salon more open. I know there's a reason the 55 is designed that way but it can be more open and still be good blue water boat. Also, because I want 3 staterooms, I was not crazy about the forward master stateroom. Frankly, i really wanted to like the 55 more than the 50 because I can find it used and save some money.

So, in my opinion, the 50 is an Amazing boat with the Amel spirit and build quality. I'm tentatively looking at March 2019 delivery. I can't wait...

Theo.
Blog: www.EtVoilaAdventures.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

Apparently they have never missed a delivery date. Great choice. I was told about 3 or 4 years ago at the Salon Nautique that it was in the pipelines. So a lot of time has been spent on its development..
 
Boom23 said:
Regarding boom furlers, why aren't they more popular than in-mast furling? If they are that much better, what's wrong?
Click to expand...
In-boom as a principle is far superior to in-mast, especially, I would have thought, for blue-water cruising where any malfunction of furling mechanisms can be overcome by just dropping the sail and securing it - something I have done with my Profurl system.

The mainsail can have full-length, horizontal battens and a roach, mine sets well and is very efficient.

However, complaints about my specific system are two-fold:
(i) the articulating luff slot is very tight-fitting and introduces friction that makes raising the sail (necessary every time, unlike in-mast) hard work, and
(ii) I cannot reef off-wind.

For (i), larger boats have electric winches (mine is only 31' and not so equipped) and therefore not a problem, and for (ii), I am told that other, more sophisticated (and expensive) systems than my Profurl one, can reef downwind. I find that without being head-to-wind, any drive in the mainsail forces it forward and causes the sail and luff-rope to jam up against the drum aft-section. There are in-boom systems where the configuration is different and not a problem, such as, I believe, the Leisure-Furl system.

Boomfurling.jpg

The system is certainly not unpopular in my Italian marina, I see more new, in-boom systems than in-mast ones. It seems in the UK that in-boom just hasn't caught on. I do think that it will become more popular in the future as systems improve and electric winches proliferate.
 
Great info Barnac1e.
I understand that in-boom furling, in principle, is superior to in-mast. It seems the implementation of in-boom furling needs some improvement.
Until that happens, I'm satisfied with the Amel in-mast furling, as it has been used, and proven, for many years.
 
One of the disadvantages or at least limitations with in boom vs in mast is that it is a 2 person job to reef with one controlling the main halyard tension and the other the actual reefing or winding the sail into the boom, it is especially so on large systems where the main halyard is usually at the mast. Also the angle of the boom to the mast or luff groove is critical as Barncal alludes.
 
Boom23 said:
Great info Barnac1e.
It seems the implementation of in-boom furling needs some improvement.
Until that happens, I'm satisfied with the Amel in-mast furling, as it has been used, and proven, for many years.
Click to expand...
It is eight years since I installed my system and I suspect development has proceeded to the point where little more improvement is needed with the leading manufacturers.

But I take your point and I would too accept what a manufacturer such as Amel supply as standard; although if in-boom was an option I wouldn't hesitate to specify it, such is my horror of being in a rising gale with a jammed sail. Been there, done that.


petehb said:
One of the disadvantages or at least limitations with in boom vs in mast is that it is a 2 person job to reef with one controlling the main halyard tension and the other the actual reefing or winding the sail into the boom, it is especially so on large systems where the main halyard is usually at the mast. Also the angle of the boom to the mast or luff groove is critical as Barncal alludes.
Click to expand...

I sail single-handed and have no problem controlling the halyard with one hand while hauling the reefing line with the other through a jam-cleat - all from the cockpit. I know of halyard brakes (control blocks) on larger systems ... even considered fitting one in the early days of teething troubles that I experienced, since eliminated without one.

The boom/mast angle is indeed important - critical even - but once set by the solid boom strut, is no problem.

IMG_4558-02.jpg
 
Last edited:
Boom23 said:
Great info Barnac1e.
I understand that in-boom furling, in principle, is superior to in-mast. It seems the implementation of in-boom furling needs some improvement.
Until that happens, I'm satisfied with the Amel in-mast furling, as it has been used, and proven, for many years.
Click to expand...

One specific advantage of the Amel system is I believe two tubes inside the mast, one for the sail and another for the cables.
 
Last edited:
On the Beneteau in-mast furling, when furling in one needs to keep tension on the outhaul line while furling in the inhaul line. The boom height should be ok as long as the topping lift line is not changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top