Are Swedish Yachts as good as they say?

Richard10002

Richard10002

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Mar 2006
Messages
18,979
Location
Manchester
Visit site
The post about the Halberg Review got me thinking -

I bought a 1994 Moody, (rather than a much newer AWB), because of the quality - both apparent and perceived. However, I seem to have just as many problems as anyone else, possibly more, unless I am just more vocal.

Do owners of the Swedish Yachts find they are as reliable as the perception, or are they fixing things just as often as the rest of us?
 
I've owned boats from England, Sweden, Finland, France and Denmark. They all have their problems, no country is immune.

Perhaps the very short scandanavian sailing season and the subsequent lack of use has something to do with this perception of quality. Or it's just good PR.
 
Yes. I've been heavilly involved in both a Swan and a Rassy and they're both fantastic.

The Rassy (36), for example, has been involved in regular charter for seven years and still looks, feels and sails like new, with only the sprayhood giving her age away to all but the expert eye.

The Swan (53) on the other hand, is just something else. I often look at the growing 50'+ brigade of AWBs and ask myself what is the point, but Lutine is majestic by comparison.
 
I think it is all perception....

Friends with a HR42 had major problems

and more recently friends with a Malo39 had major problems

Both boats purchased new. Undoubtably they are heavier boats and that is perhaps where the perception of quality comes from.

There might be something said for the volume producers of lighter boats and their snagging history.

We owned three new Moodys and spent the first year of each of them getting rid of the snags and modifying some of the more obvious 'why did they do it that way'.....

Would be interesting to find out average number of snags per manufacturer over the first year by size of boat.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the very short scandanavian sailing season and the subsequent lack of use has something to do with this perception of quality. Or it's just good PR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be because they use good quality production methods, attention to detail and quaility materials.

I'm sure they're not perfect, but the record speaks for itself.
 
I've got a 19 year old HR352, which I've had since 96, and I have to say it's a source of deep joy. OK, it's not immune to things needing maintenance, but the basic boat is incredibly well thought-out, impeccably constructed, and very resistant to wear and tear. And, hopefully, it will even have retained a reasonable proportion of its purchase price.
 
I've had my 34 for 9 years now. The design, both for its sailing and living qualities, has been a continuous source of joy and given us the best cruising we've had.

However, a boat is a very complex object and we've had a lot of problems with components, which seemed to be of good quality, and is no criticism of HR, as they were al least as good as one would expect. Water systems, heating and so on.
 
No direct experience of Swedish yachts.. but I had first hand experience of a "top" UK builder. The boat was named after a Canadian city, the builder was on the N of the shore...

Prop fell off during sea trials... self tapping screws were pointing into the lockers ready to rip hands and clothes..teak gunwhales held on by self tappers....

Albeit a few years ago, but destroyed my impression of this builder and of new boats in general. My indirect experience of Swedish yachts suggests they are of better quality.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've got a 19 year old HR352, which I've had since 96, and I have to say it's a source of deep joy. OK, it's not immune to things needing maintenance, but the basic boat is incredibly well thought-out, impeccably constructed, and very resistant to wear and tear. And, hopefully, it will even have retained a reasonable proportion of its purchase price.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know much about Swedish yachts, but I've got a 27 year old Vancouver 27 (Northshore moulded, Pheon fitted out) which I've had two years - and virtually all the above comments hold true.. which is one major reason why I bought her!

It might just be that heavier, more robustly built boats are 'better' - which is why they cost more in the first place and tend to hold their value in the longer run.

That said, a 27 year old wooden tiller is still 27 years old and will need scraping and sanding and revarnishing like any other 27 year old weathered piece of wood, whatever boat its off.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I bought a 1994 Moody, (rather than a much newer AWB), because of the quality - both apparent and perceived. However, I seem to have just as many problems as anyone else, possibly more, unless I am just more vocal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends on what "problems" you are having. I would not expect a Swedish boat to have any more or less problems with electronics or engines than an AWB. Those kinds of systems will largely have the same reliability regardless of the boat on which they are installed.

Similarly, you don't hear very often of catastrophic failures of structural components - hulls, rudders, keels etc. - in either "top end" or AWB.

The only place that I think "build quality" could have a noticeable impact is on interior fit out - cupboard doors with weak hinges, cabin doors that don't open on one tack, or interior joinery that loses its veneer after a few years. Things like that. Other than that, I believe most of the prejudice about "build quality" is just that - prejudice.
 
Having had close up experience of a Swan 40 that was so over engineeered that it was about 9 years before the owner had a trouble free season. Also a Nayad that had the biggest snagging list imaginable but once sorted, a gorgeous boat.

Maybe it goes to show that however you design and spec a boat, humans is humans the world over when it comes to boat building. My only new boat is German and I now feel I was incredibly lucky with snagging. Nothing major. I know plenty of similar boats from that marque that have been a nightmare. Definitely feel that once fully de-snagged the better quality boats then have a much more trouble free life. (ducking under the parapet again)
 
There is a view that equates weight with "quality", but weight can be used badly. I think this is the case with many older designs when the properties of materials were not well understood. Equally much equipment particularly electrics in the past was poor. So even a "quality" older boat starts off with a disadvantage, made worse by many years of use and modifications.

As to whether Swedish boats are actually any better on the "trouble free" stakes there seems to be no clear cut answer - depends on who you speak to and what the problems are.

As others have pointed out, much of the proprietary equipment is the same as other brands, although usually next size up, not necessarily to make it "better" but because greater weight requires bigger sail area requires larger mast section etc.

Owning a boat from the other end of the spectrum but wishing I could indulge in an expensive boat, the differences I observe are better materials, more content, better finish, some better design and that indefinable feeling of togetherness. Whether that makes an HR 372 worth twice as much as a Bavaria 38 is another matter. All I can say is that my bargain basement Bavaria 37 of 2001 performed extremely well as a charter boat for 7 seasons and still looks (almost) as good as the day I took delivery - and everything works.
 
Every boat I've bought, sail and power, has been exactly what I wanted at the time. And every one has then been tinkered with to add this, fix that, improve the other. Their imperfection is part of their charm and I think that I would find a trouble-free boat a bit dull.

There are a couple of Halberg Rasseys moored near me which could almost tempt me back to the light side though....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm sure they're not perfect, but the record speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of interest what record are you referring to? I am trying to be objective about this as it does intrigue me that swedes are twice the price of an AWB. I can't really see how the big premium is justified for a HR (sorry my generic term for all swedes) etc... over an AWB.

I asked people I know at the sharp end of boat repair/refit what they thought. They seem to concur that a 5/10/20/25 (pick your number) year old HR is as tired looking as the equivalent AWB.

Why then are some people prepared to pay the vast difference? Quality? Quality of what? Hull and deck? Well it seems logical to me that any of the AWB builders are more than capable of manipulating GRP into any shape they want, at least as as well as or even better than the swedes. The Swedes don't have a special secret method as far as I know.

So let's say they are fairly equal at the plastic bit. We can rule out all the accessories as these are made by someone else anyway i.e. engine, spars, electronics, fittings etc..... so what's left?

The only bit where I see they differ is in the interior fit out. I agree that the craftsmanship of the joinery is definately better in HR's etc...., however just because the craftmanship is better and perhaps hand made, it doesn't necessarily mean it's function is any better or will last longer than a prefabricated module plopped in before the lids screwed down. Maybe it does, but boats get old and no matter what the boat is, it gains all the attributes of an ageing boat. I am not talking "classics" here, only GRP boats from say 1970 onwards.

What's left then? Design? Well there seems to be a difference there from my limited knowledge of these things. Many will argue that the HR style hull design is best and they may be right, but I am sure that the AWB builders have little difficulty in making a hull that shape. Surely it would very naive to think otherwise I would suggest. Ironically it seems that the swedes are gradually moving towards AWB hull shapes from what I have read and seen in the past year or so. Why would they be doing that if AWB shapes are supposed to be so bad? I put forward the suggestion that maybe they are not so bad as some like to suggest!

I have no doubt that HR's etc are great boats, but I simply can't see the price justification. I have not done the sums in detail so please forgive me if I've miscalculated, but I suspect that if you bought say a 45 footer AWB at say £175,000, you could buy a brand new one, say every 7 years, sell it, buy another one and keep it for 7 years and keep doing this for many 7 year cycles until you get fed up with sailing. At the end you have always sailed a nice new boat without any hassles and all the things that "new" means. you would still have an asset to sell. For similar money you could have bought a £350,000 swede which started to deteriote slowly but surely and continuously from the first day. It would be getting a bit damp inside, and all the lovely craftmanship and scupltured wood will be harbouring all sorts of smells, costing a fortune in maintenance and time. Electronics will be old hat, engine worn out. All in all it's getting old and tired. It happens to everything. Swedes are not immune.

At the end of the time of ownership the 7 year old AWB will almost certainly be worth more than than what will be a 21/28/36 year old swede.

Is there logic to what I have said or am I missing something? No doubt I will be put right! Maybe some agree? There is always a first time!
 
We have a '92 HR and after a several years of ownership I can say there are two distinct differences with man other (cheaper) boats.

- The level of finishing is higher. They tend to 'walk the extra mile' at build time
- Most of the stuff on the boat is one size bigger/heavier/more robust than what the competition uses on a similar sized boat.

This results in a boat that resists wear and tear a bit more easy and is also more pleasing to the eye if you are a person that notices these differences.

But, like said before, all boats are 'hard work' to keep and HRs are no different. I've spend so much time on the boat in the winter for all kinds of projects that I've lost track.
Most sensitive point is obviously the teak deck. Because HP uses silicone caulking in the seams you need to replace that after approx. 15 years. That is not a nice job to say the very, very least.
But I've also replaced the loo, the pressure tank of the water system, the propellor, the main track. several blocks, two of the portlights, a rudder bearing, etc. etc.

But the boat looks fantastic and the original gelcoat is still in very good shape. The underwatership is like new, etc.

Bottom line is, if you treat a Swedish boat well, it will be a little more easy to keep in a perfect state but don't expect a zero maintenance boat. Also I believe the older boats were build to heavier standards then the new ones (like many other boat builders did)

Now if we are talking about sailing performance, that's a whole other area. I can only dream of the agility of a modern fin keeled yacht. But on open sea I do enjoy the seakindness of my boat as well...

Like said so many times before: every boat is a compromise, take the one that fits you best.

Arno
 
Although in general I agree with your analysis there are a few point I would like to make here.

[ QUOTE ]

So let's say they are fairly equal at the plastic bit.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not completely true. The type of polyester that Swedish builders use is a bit more expensive and more resistant to osmosis. They also tend to go for bigger hull thickness values.

[ QUOTE ]

We can rule out all the accessories as these are made by someone else anyway i.e. engine, spars, electronics, fittings etc..... so what's left?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very often you will see the Swedes using one size bigger accessories compared to the AWB. I have size 42 winches on a 31 foot, the same as Bavaria uses on a 38 foot. It's not that it will not work, but the wear and tear on such things goes faster.

[ QUOTE ]

What's left then? Design? Well there seems to be a difference there from my limited knowledge of these things.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me this is the core of the issue. When I decided to buy a boat, I knew this would be an expensive and time-consuming hobby. I also was not sure if I would like this offshore sailing thing.
So in the end I decided I wanted a boat that I would really like and I mean really. This makes it easier to cope with all the costs and time you need for it. Also I wanted a boat that is in relative high demand on the second hand market. It's easier to sell your boat if you do not have to compete with 20 others of similar price and looks. People that buy a HR most of the times are looking for a HR and not just boat of that size.

In the end I do believe from economy point of view you are correct. The excess amount of capital invested in a HR is properly better off at a (decent) saving bank. But there is this nice emotion associated with having a (small) HR making it worthwhile.

Arno
 
Aluijten amkes some very important technical points but there is also the matter of the overall design. There is a specific style of the Swedish boats. Whilst the various manufacturers retain their own identities, you can tell a Swedish boat without the logos.

There is an underlying tone in some threads of 'Well British Moody was as good and its all some horrible mistake that made them go to pot'. This jsut is not true. The style and presence that you get with the Scandanavian boats just was not the case with Moody. Moody produced very similiar designes to the French builders but at a greater price. In most cases the build quality was marginally better with Moody (though Gib'sea owners for one would cry foul at that).

In short, if you are going to be mopre expensive, you need both quality and style. I'm not convinced Moody had either.
 
[ QUOTE ]
but I've got a 27 year old Vancouver 27 (Northshore moulded, Pheon fitted out)


[/ QUOTE ]

The Pheon fitted boats were much better than the Northshore boats... but perhaps that is why Pheon went bust.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not completely true. The type of polyester that Swedish builders use is a bit more expensive and more resistant to osmosis. They also tend to go for bigger hull thickness values.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then how come there are three Swedish boats very local to me that have had osmosis problems in 5-10yrs only from new? One HR, one Nauticat and one Maxi.

[ QUOTE ]
Very often you will see the Swedes using one size bigger accessories compared to the AWB. I have size 42 winches on a 31 foot, the same as Bavaria uses on a 38 foot. It's not that it will not work, but the wear and tear on such things goes faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Size is related to load and lighter weight and/or smaller sail area means smaller winches are needed. Generally speaking though most cruising boats have winches that are too small 'because they don't race', daft really because the racer will have more and stronger crew to work them. Smaller ones anyway will not wear out faster just be harder work to use. That said we have Lewmar 52 STs on our Jeanneau 41 compared to the 42s on the chunky HR 395 in the next berth. We also have far more winches with all sail controls led back to the cockpit whereas our neighbour gets roughed up working at the mast. Then we have 6 Lewmar deck hatches and 4 more opening ports for light and ventilation whereas our neighbour sweats in the dark below.

When we bought our current boat in 2001 we had spent 18 months searching for a 'quality' brand over 40ft at around the same price we would have paid then for a new Jeanneau SO40. We saw lots of tired boats at inflated prices but none we were prepared to buy. Our lovely but older Jeanneau from 1988 was an instant must have and very much cheaper and that is from someone who until then would 'never buy a French boat', what a plonker! We have several friends with HRs and Malos and even a big Bowman and forgetting the huge differences in their paper values and ours I wouldn't do a straight swap for any of them.
 
Well so far this has been a very reasoned debate and a common theme that is emerging is that the attempt to define quality is proving to be elusive.

Perhaps the reason for that is that so far this has been linked mainly to being fault free and providing long product life.

But the fact is that we individually apply different criteria in measuring what we term high quality.

To my mind the Swedish boats bring a certain style to the marketplace, as they do to furniture. Its a mixture of good quality materials and design fashioned into something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing, which doesn't date rapidly because they are not slaves to fashion.

Add to that something which is a pleasure to sail, (dynamically pleasing if you like), and you are starting to construct a picture of this elusive quality.

Of course if you don't build down to a price, you can afford to fit out with better components, although it is true many of these are shared across most boats. Similarly you can also consider better interior designs that may be more expensive than just providing as many bunks as possible for a given LOA.

The weight of construction has also been debated, and whilst more advanced engineering skills enable a lighter construction that is still safe, a certain weight and ballast ratio is desirable to provide comfort and safety.

Finally there is the exclusivity and cachet of the brand brought about by the the higher price. This can be seen in action in other walks of life as buyers pay a premium for the Audi brand compared with an identically engineered VW or Skoda.

So to conclude, quality is in the eye of the beholder and can include:

1. Reliability
2. Longevity
3. Style/beauty/aesthetics
4. Performance
5. Comfort
6. Safety
7. Branding

Are the expensive boats worth the money? The people that can afford them think so - as they continue to buy. The second hand market thinks so as the resale values appear to hold up.

Are they more reliable? Very much doubt it as they have so many common components with other cheaper makes.

Will they last longer? Generally yes, but only, I suspect, because the maintenance budget is provided by wealthier owners wanting to protect their investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top