b***teau - the boat that dare not speak its name

3

[3889]

...
Joined
26 May 2003
Messages
4,139
Visit site
Anticipating the guffaws from the detractors of these fine vessels, does anybody know whats happened to the beneteau owners site? My link comes up with "cannot find server".
Cheers
Andy

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
quick question: I had a job to move a 50' beneteau from Tortola BVI to Buzzard's bay and the boat pounded. (smashed down on the waves like it had a flat bottom)
do all these boats do this?

<hr width=100% size=1>The only easy day was yesterday
 
Were you motoring or sailing? Lot of modern hulls have what's known as a U section bow - imagine the U having more pronounced corners. The principle being that the corners of the U present nicely when heeled. Downside is that they do slam when motoring. Known as 'hitting the kerb'.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
Pounding

in a head sea is very typical of modern production boats, Beneteau, janneau, Bavaria.

They're all lightweight boats with a high degree of form stability and a flat forefoot designed to be easily sailed in ideal conditions by an inexperienced crew.

Try using main and motor at about 55 to apparent wind and you'll find they're much better - try working them to windward in a F7 seastate and they'll start experiencing minor structural failure in the forecabin area.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Pounding

"try working them to windward in a F7 seastate and they'll start experiencing minor structural failure in the forecabin area."

I've sailed a number of AWBs in those condititons and that is simply not true.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
Re: Pounding

Charles, I agree if you just sit there and 'pound away' upwind its horrible. If you keep them on the groove, on the point of stalling and steer round the waves all the pounding stops and you still make over 6 knots, at least my Barra does anyway.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: shal we agree to disagree

Probably best; (agreeing to disagree..) I've done it more times than I've wanted to (in a Ben) and it's solid. Bit of a generalisation Charles?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Next time

You're flying through turbulence in a 747, watch the wings.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
watching a 747\'s wings..

True, but..

The stress & fatigue analysis reports on a 747 probably come near to equalling a 747's weight and would have taken several thousand man-years of work to compile. This isn't the case for any boat - there's just not the money available to do it. The loads in aircraft can be better defined, so the analysis needs a lower margin of safety, making the flex more acceptable. The inspection regime necessitated by this level of design is also intolerable for consumers.

More modern boats, it's always struck me, are acheiving lightness through a dual combination of better design and reduced safety margins. I can accept the former but not the latter.

It rather feels as if grp boat design is following (albeit more slowly) the way grp gliders went. The first generation were strong and heavy. The second generation developed lighter & better planes, but a few designs went too far and started having failures - mainspar to wing failure, that sort of thing. The third generation (where the designs seem to be now) learnt from the good and bad lessons and gave an altogether better product.
I sort of feel boats are heading towards the 'dodgy' end of the second generation designs. I may be wrong, and I hope I am wrong, but looking at some of the faster & lighter modern boats gives me a bit of concern about the way the designs are heading. The early mixing of CF & GRP in airframes wasn't a happy experience, and similar lessons are being re-learnt in a different industry, about 15 to 20 years later.

Regards

Richard.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Turbulence

Yes we have all seen aircraft wings flexing, (just watch a sailplane in a thermal) but the reports of main-spar failure, except in very elderly aircraft, just don't exist.
The analogy however is based upon a misapprehension - aircraft wings are designed to flex, boat hulls are intended to be relatively rigid.

I however know of two reports where forecabin joinery have failed in larger beneteaus - one of these reports was published on this very website.

So I will re-iterate, pushing a modern production boat, with high form-stability, high ballast ratio and U foresections to windward in rough conditions, runs the very real risk of the boat suffering structural damage to forecabin joinery, caused by distortion of the hull structure.

GRP composites are flexible, but continual flexing gradually destroys the bond between glass and polyester (less so with woven rovings than mat). The bond with carbon fibre is even more subject to deterioration, though those with high-modulus composites are far more stable.
It is, I suggest, no accident that a number of the Beneteau models boast of having Kevlar re-inforcement.

I wonder how many years of hard-driving will be needed for the first reports of hull collapses to trickle through.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Turbulence

" modern production boat, with high form-stability, high ballast ratio and U foresections "

Does this sound a bit like a Parker?

Or am I missing something?

I donn't really see that for the vast majority of people there is a problem. Sure if most of your sailing is trans ocean then any lightweight boat is not perhaps the ideal. But very few people do this to any great extent. For most people inshore/offshore passages probably less than 48 hours are the norm when only the occasional bashing when weather goes wrong is likely.

What bothers me more is the category ratings, when you see an obviously lightweight "flyer" with the same Ocean category as the recognised long distance boats then there must be something wrong with the system.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The Parker

actually has very low form stability, but it does have a U forefoot and by God it does pound.

In my experience Bavaria 37 and 46 are even worse and the 3 later Beneteaus I've been on, equally resounding.

The only point I'm trying to make is that these boats go to windward superbly but ALL run a very real risk of knocking themselves as well as the crew to bits whilst doing so. So it's up to the skipper to mitigate the situation.

For me laying off an extra 10 degrees and powering through on the main does the job. The worst thing is to try and main/motor sail to windward - not only do you lose speed, but also teeth.

I can expect disagreement from those who either haven't been in the Med, who haven't done it (made a long windward haul in heavy weather) or haven't seen the results.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The Parker

If you have grown up in dinghy's you will be used to sailing around the waves, loads of modern boats will pound if just stuck on outohelm and left, in any blow you have got to steer the boat properly or they will pound. I have sailed all sorts of things with all sorts of helmsmen and the best are always ex dinghy folks. If you cant sail smoothly try a dinghy to practice.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top