chrisb
New member
the answer is no they are not and there are a hell of alot of world wide who agree with this answer.
Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?
- Thread starter twodragons
- Start date
AlexL
Member
yeah they're terrible, thats why Those 3 manufacturers are by far the most succesful boat makers in the world! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
G
Guest
Guest
But a more traditional hull shape would have just heeled more and kept going in a straight line, reefed or not. Sailing one immediately after the other is a revelation.
It is I believe a fact that a wide bodied sailing boat will lose rudder control when heeled. You are, if I understand you correctly, saying: reef them, don't heel them. But there are times when whatever you do the boat will be heeled. And unfortunately it is not possible to reef a boat's freeboard and coachroof. There is a moment when all that windage overcomes any drive produced by whatever sails it has been possible to set. Also, in the real world, not everyone reefs their sails in perfect time, and it is nice to have a boat that is a little forgiving of human frailty. With a large, highly motivated and experienced crew on board it becomes possible to sail just about anything in just about any wind.
I do not mean to contradict what you are saying, each person must speak from his/her own experience. Clearly many people have a very enjoyable time sailing volume production cruisers. But I don't think that anyone could reasonably argue that they are good at sailing to windward in a blow.
It is I believe a fact that a wide bodied sailing boat will lose rudder control when heeled. You are, if I understand you correctly, saying: reef them, don't heel them. But there are times when whatever you do the boat will be heeled. And unfortunately it is not possible to reef a boat's freeboard and coachroof. There is a moment when all that windage overcomes any drive produced by whatever sails it has been possible to set. Also, in the real world, not everyone reefs their sails in perfect time, and it is nice to have a boat that is a little forgiving of human frailty. With a large, highly motivated and experienced crew on board it becomes possible to sail just about anything in just about any wind.
I do not mean to contradict what you are saying, each person must speak from his/her own experience. Clearly many people have a very enjoyable time sailing volume production cruisers. But I don't think that anyone could reasonably argue that they are good at sailing to windward in a blow.
jimi
Well-known member
Ok ease the main then, any boat will head upo into the wind if overcanvassed or oversheeted .. and yes I've sailed MAB's (including a contessa 32) as well as AWBs. Think you're overstating the case by quite a big margin here. Anyroads between your Co32 and my Bennie 331 I know what speed I'd passage plan both at!
Robin
Well-known member
Sweeping generalisations
Heres another generalisation:-
All traditional designs are slow, roll downwind, don't handle well if at all under engine astern are dank dark and cramped down below.
Now that is plainly as untrue of all such designs as are the generalisations you have made over modern ones! All of the production builders have ranges of boats, varying in type (pure cruiser, cruiser/racer or racer) as well as size. Make a comment about an individual design by all means but the same comment doesn't apply across the board. As for windward ability, the Contessa isn't that great anyway in modern terms whatever the weather, I used to beat them with a 1970's Elizabethan 30 and my current 1988 Jeanneau Sun Legende would leave them for dead in double quick time but then she is 41ft so clearly unfair.
Heres another generalisation:-
All traditional designs are slow, roll downwind, don't handle well if at all under engine astern are dank dark and cramped down below.
Now that is plainly as untrue of all such designs as are the generalisations you have made over modern ones! All of the production builders have ranges of boats, varying in type (pure cruiser, cruiser/racer or racer) as well as size. Make a comment about an individual design by all means but the same comment doesn't apply across the board. As for windward ability, the Contessa isn't that great anyway in modern terms whatever the weather, I used to beat them with a 1970's Elizabethan 30 and my current 1988 Jeanneau Sun Legende would leave them for dead in double quick time but then she is 41ft so clearly unfair.
All Ben/Jen/Bavs do not pop out of the same jelly mould, there is a lot of variation so it is wrong to condemn all these boats based on one bad experience. My Bavaria Match 35 has less beam than a Victoria 34. Then add my 7' 2" lead keel, slim bow sections and I'll be happy to take you on in a windward leg.
There was a trend in the second half of the 90's towards stubby wing keels and with matching short rudders plus really wide aft sections. These are the Ben/Jen/Bavs that most people will have encountered on a charter holiday.
Mainstream manufacturers are now backing away from these late 90's design characteristics.
There was a trend in the second half of the 90's towards stubby wing keels and with matching short rudders plus really wide aft sections. These are the Ben/Jen/Bavs that most people will have encountered on a charter holiday.
Mainstream manufacturers are now backing away from these late 90's design characteristics.
billmacfarlane
Active member
With regards to size, I'd personally charter one for a week and see how I get on, and yes whatever you get will still be afloat in a couple of years, assuming of course that you avoid all those Brittany rocks before you head for the Med. Boats of the size and style you want regularly sail across the pond and there are many stories from regular round the world sailors of how they've never met winds of more than F8. Of course you'll get the horror stories as well. Like the Beneteau something or other that capsized in Biscay, and so on. The other 500 of that production run seem to sail well enough !! The common consensus, apart from one notable exception, is that the boats are good enough for most conditions and I'd go along with that. Have a look at the Hanse range as well.
G
Guest
Guest
I am not claiming that the Contessa is faster upwind in all windspeeds over all other boats of similar size - my comments were aimed at comparing the Contessa upwind in a very strong wind against wide bodied/high freeboard designs (which I think without exception all BenJenBavs are, perhaps to a greater or lesser extent, but in a marina berth next to a Contessa they ALL look high volume).
Yes, I'm generalising, but the BenJenBav generalisation is in the question itself, and as much in the other replies to this thread as mine.
But one specific occasion which sticks in my head: beating up the Solent against 32-40 kts of wind, seastate was bumpy, but sheltered being in the Solent. There were about 5 other boats out, 2 or 3 with storm jibs. There was a Sigma, I think it was a 36, a Westerly (something Storm-shaped/sized, but I'm not sure exactly what), I can't remember the other designs, but they were wide-bodied. Despite storm canvas they were having real difficulties getting to windward, making an awful lot of leeway. I estimated the speed on each tack of the fastest of them (the Sigma) taking account of leeway to be less than half our speed. A couple of boats seemed unable to make any progress. Our speed was 6 knots in the right direction. We had only the two of us on board, and the other chap had only sailed on Lake Geneva before. Incidentally, one of their crews I met later said that there was 45+ kts of wind, but I think that was an overestimate.
Personally I like the Sigma, and have on several occasions raced in the 38's. It and the Westerly would be non-extreme designs (regarding beam and freeboard) by BenJenBav standards, and I am not criticising them. In this particular wind their (relative to Contessa) high freeboard was a disadvantage.
Anyway, I am sure that you will have tales that tell the opposite of my observations. But the other replies to this thread IMHO give a far too one-sided view of the benefits of BenJenBavs and I think a little balance to the discussion was called for.
Yes, I'm generalising, but the BenJenBav generalisation is in the question itself, and as much in the other replies to this thread as mine.
But one specific occasion which sticks in my head: beating up the Solent against 32-40 kts of wind, seastate was bumpy, but sheltered being in the Solent. There were about 5 other boats out, 2 or 3 with storm jibs. There was a Sigma, I think it was a 36, a Westerly (something Storm-shaped/sized, but I'm not sure exactly what), I can't remember the other designs, but they were wide-bodied. Despite storm canvas they were having real difficulties getting to windward, making an awful lot of leeway. I estimated the speed on each tack of the fastest of them (the Sigma) taking account of leeway to be less than half our speed. A couple of boats seemed unable to make any progress. Our speed was 6 knots in the right direction. We had only the two of us on board, and the other chap had only sailed on Lake Geneva before. Incidentally, one of their crews I met later said that there was 45+ kts of wind, but I think that was an overestimate.
Personally I like the Sigma, and have on several occasions raced in the 38's. It and the Westerly would be non-extreme designs (regarding beam and freeboard) by BenJenBav standards, and I am not criticising them. In this particular wind their (relative to Contessa) high freeboard was a disadvantage.
Anyway, I am sure that you will have tales that tell the opposite of my observations. But the other replies to this thread IMHO give a far too one-sided view of the benefits of BenJenBavs and I think a little balance to the discussion was called for.
G
Guest
Guest
Couldn't reach the mainsheet - it was on the coachroof in front of the wheel!
Contessa in these circumstances (main oversized/oversheeted) will develop a lot of weather helm, but will not round up uncontrollably.
Contessa in these circumstances (main oversized/oversheeted) will develop a lot of weather helm, but will not round up uncontrollably.
jasu74
New member
nice to see that someone else has similar kind of taste on boats
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Robin
Well-known member
In strong winds a few years back (F6 gusting 7) off St Albans Head, wind against strong tide and inshore, we passed a Co32 easily upwind. Not in our current 41 footer but in our previous Westerly 33 Ketch, the Contessa was being stopped dead by the seas in the Tide race. Likewise in F8 -F9 upwind in a chartered Rival 41 in the Solent I was passed by a Quarter Tonner pointing higher and going faster (but admittedly wetter). All of which goes to prove nothing whatsoever.
We need to recognise that designs move on. Not all new boats are bad any more than all old ones are good, and not all new designs are the same. If the C032 and it's like were the only types to sail/own, the builders would still be in business. Like the Norton, Vincent and the MGB we remember them being better than they really were, but the legends live on.
We need to recognise that designs move on. Not all new boats are bad any more than all old ones are good, and not all new designs are the same. If the C032 and it's like were the only types to sail/own, the builders would still be in business. Like the Norton, Vincent and the MGB we remember them being better than they really were, but the legends live on.
[ QUOTE ]
nice to see that someone else has similar kind of taste on boats
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you are in trouble /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif My M35 has not been out to sea yet, have you any idea how many questions I have queued up for you?
nice to see that someone else has similar kind of taste on boats
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you are in trouble /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif My M35 has not been out to sea yet, have you any idea how many questions I have queued up for you?
[ QUOTE ]
the other replies to this thread IMHO give a far too one-sided view of the benefits of BenJenBavs
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey? We AWB owners are the oppressed and abused group here at Scuttlebutt!
the other replies to this thread IMHO give a far too one-sided view of the benefits of BenJenBavs
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey? We AWB owners are the oppressed and abused group here at Scuttlebutt!
chrisb
New member
returning to the question which 1 understood to be about yachts in the 40-45ft range . I think there is a difference between say a 30 fter and say a 423 [or a 411 for that matter which is widely used for long distance cruising - ]the smaller boats ; leaving aside charter version seem to try to accomodate the same crew as the larger ones:that is 6 berths. this tends to make the smaller boats more voluminous in order to provide the acomodation.Certianly my experience of sailing a awb 40f1 ft version off shore in western uk including winter sailing and extensive cruising to europe in varying conditions upto storm force has given no cause for concern over sea keeping properties. indeed it is a joy that the boat sails and points well in all conditions. the engine tends to be used for battery charging and no wind situations-.go sail one but look for the bigger rig and deeper keel. i think the bigger boats are a different breed to their smaller sisters
nicho
Well-known member
You are right, we AWB owners are the opressed majority. What was it Winston Churchill said - "Never has so much crap been subjected to so many, by so few..........."
Something like that anyway......!
Something like that anyway......!
ShipsWoofy
New member
[ QUOTE ]
Hey? We AWB owners are the oppressed and abused group here at Scuttlebutt!
[/ QUOTE ]
You are not even close to having a class of boat that is constantly abused on this forum, a little light jibe maybe, but believe me the abuse is saved for other types of vessel. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Hey? We AWB owners are the oppressed and abused group here at Scuttlebutt!
[/ QUOTE ]
You are not even close to having a class of boat that is constantly abused on this forum, a little light jibe maybe, but believe me the abuse is saved for other types of vessel. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
BustinAround
New member
Well,when racing (in awb's none the less), I would say that 30kts of wind would be a number 3 and 1 reef or number 2 and two reefs. And we'd be making 7 kts to windward with our 35 feet waterline.
Yes, you do have to play your mainsail to keep her on track in the gusts, but if caught out and not reefed in time you can just slide the main down to the bottom of the track, yank on loads of backstay and bob's your uncle.
Down with the naysayers, Long Live the AWB!
Yes, you do have to play your mainsail to keep her on track in the gusts, but if caught out and not reefed in time you can just slide the main down to the bottom of the track, yank on loads of backstay and bob's your uncle.
Down with the naysayers, Long Live the AWB!
jasu74
New member
yes I beleave I have /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I bought my own one in sep 03 when I saw the spesifications, price and layout. after that there were too many months waiting period. the first sailing was june04. I have not managed to get too many miles on the log (about 1000) but so far I can say that she performs extremly well on light air conditions. and I only have about 110% jib and main (30+41m^2).
blump bow is little dificult in some marinas (we use stern anchor alot here in scandinavia) and "gennaker peak" or "hop in land peak" (bowsprit) is advisable.
(in http://www.batsystem.se there's a pic of 35 match with "gennakerpeke" but unfortunately routers are down and I can't reach the site)
I have heard from other single/two handed sailors that extra pair of winches could be valuable. you can install those in similar way than in 38 match.
I bought my own one in sep 03 when I saw the spesifications, price and layout. after that there were too many months waiting period. the first sailing was june04. I have not managed to get too many miles on the log (about 1000) but so far I can say that she performs extremly well on light air conditions. and I only have about 110% jib and main (30+41m^2).
blump bow is little dificult in some marinas (we use stern anchor alot here in scandinavia) and "gennaker peak" or "hop in land peak" (bowsprit) is advisable.
(in http://www.batsystem.se there's a pic of 35 match with "gennakerpeke" but unfortunately routers are down and I can't reach the site)
I have heard from other single/two handed sailors that extra pair of winches could be valuable. you can install those in similar way than in 38 match.
Sea Devil
Well-known member
I think there was a very reasonable statement made that nobody was going to drown sailing AWB. You can sail anything across the atlantic/pacific et al. Very much the man/person rather than the boat.
The difference is pehaps this - if you want to drive a car from Lands end to Glasgow regurlaly what is more suitible? A Fiat Uno or Renault 4 or an Audi/Jaguar/BMW? All will do the job. The fatigue level will probably be higher in the former than the latter.
Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...
Really depends what you want to do with boat - be like 99% and enjoy sailing in local waters most of the year with some longer trips in the summer holidays - Why buy a Roll Royce to do that?
If you want to spend years entering strange harbours, dodgy anchorages, crowded strange marinas and fuel berths where you will be lucky if you don't pick up the odd scrape then perhaps you want something a bit tougher - but you can sail alomost anything - anywhere!
-----
The difference is pehaps this - if you want to drive a car from Lands end to Glasgow regurlaly what is more suitible? A Fiat Uno or Renault 4 or an Audi/Jaguar/BMW? All will do the job. The fatigue level will probably be higher in the former than the latter.
Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...
Really depends what you want to do with boat - be like 99% and enjoy sailing in local waters most of the year with some longer trips in the summer holidays - Why buy a Roll Royce to do that?
If you want to spend years entering strange harbours, dodgy anchorages, crowded strange marinas and fuel berths where you will be lucky if you don't pick up the odd scrape then perhaps you want something a bit tougher - but you can sail alomost anything - anywhere!
-----
Robin
Well-known member
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an implication here that the Moody 36 that you have cruised extensively is one of these heavier, tougher boats. In reality the Moodys of that era were considered lightly built and with relatively low ballast weights, resistance to heeling came from form stabilty (ie wide beam). Also the Moody 36 and the bigger versions from Angus Primrose had wide sterns to incorporate the owners suites with large double bed that, and the spacious accomodation was their main selling point. All these features are those that are thrown into the AWB versus traditional argument as being bad points, in truth therefore these boats were the forerunners of a modern day AWB! In reality these Moodys have cruised extensively as you have shown, despite not having the underwater profile or the weight of a Colin Archer.
Modern AWBs are criticised for having flat forward sections that can cause slamming. Those who say that conveniently forget that many of the so called traditionals in their current form have been tweaked below the waterline in recent years to try and get them to sail better, their shapes are much closer to the lines that are being criticised. Designs have evolved over the years, buyers want more performance and more comfort and modern designs provide these features but still with the usual compromises depending on which features are most important to which buyer.
The biggest irritation to me on this subject is the sweeping generalisation that all 'this' is good and all 'that' is bad. If that were indeeed the case we would have just one design from one designer that comes by the metre, you buy an 8 metre, 10 metre or whatever, each just scaled up/down from the so-called ideal design.
Sorry Bambola, this wasn't really aimed at you but at the general misconceptions and prejudices that are around. I'm not saying that all AWBs are good for all purposes either, there are some I wouldn't want to cross the Channel in but there are others I would happily go transocean in. Likewise there are some 'traditional' boats about that I wouldn't want at any price either, just as there are a few that I would.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an implication here that the Moody 36 that you have cruised extensively is one of these heavier, tougher boats. In reality the Moodys of that era were considered lightly built and with relatively low ballast weights, resistance to heeling came from form stabilty (ie wide beam). Also the Moody 36 and the bigger versions from Angus Primrose had wide sterns to incorporate the owners suites with large double bed that, and the spacious accomodation was their main selling point. All these features are those that are thrown into the AWB versus traditional argument as being bad points, in truth therefore these boats were the forerunners of a modern day AWB! In reality these Moodys have cruised extensively as you have shown, despite not having the underwater profile or the weight of a Colin Archer.
Modern AWBs are criticised for having flat forward sections that can cause slamming. Those who say that conveniently forget that many of the so called traditionals in their current form have been tweaked below the waterline in recent years to try and get them to sail better, their shapes are much closer to the lines that are being criticised. Designs have evolved over the years, buyers want more performance and more comfort and modern designs provide these features but still with the usual compromises depending on which features are most important to which buyer.
The biggest irritation to me on this subject is the sweeping generalisation that all 'this' is good and all 'that' is bad. If that were indeeed the case we would have just one design from one designer that comes by the metre, you buy an 8 metre, 10 metre or whatever, each just scaled up/down from the so-called ideal design.
Sorry Bambola, this wasn't really aimed at you but at the general misconceptions and prejudices that are around. I'm not saying that all AWBs are good for all purposes either, there are some I wouldn't want to cross the Channel in but there are others I would happily go transocean in. Likewise there are some 'traditional' boats about that I wouldn't want at any price either, just as there are a few that I would.