Bavaria lost keel again

OR4751 said:
Would it be fair to say that most boats sold these days are sold to people interested in cruising rather than racing?
I may be leading a fairly sheltered life, but I don't see many Bavarias, Beneteaus, .... out and about actively racing.
In which case, most modern boats are being less well engineered just to cut cost.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, we should never lose sight of this fact.

Our boat is rather older (early 80s build), but when we were looking to buy an encapsulated keel and skeg-hung rudder were 'must haves'.
People can argue improved building procedures, new materials, etc... till they are blue in the face, but I have yet to read any reports about a boat with an encapsulated keel and skeg-hung rudder losing either.

IMO, not all so-called progress is in fact an improvement. It's more about cost, sometimes at the expense of quality.
Click to expand...

Encapsulated keels were a short-lived fashion when boats essentially designed for wooden construction were built in GRP - but still retained the shape of a wooden boat. The keel was not designed as a foil, but merely a place to hold ballast and it was relatively easy just to make a "wooden boat shaped" moulding and fill the keel cavity with ballast. Some long fin keels continued to be encapsulated, but gradually fell out of favour when better techniques of designing hull structures and casting keels became available.

Similarly skegs came about as designers saw benefits in separating keels from rudders, but were unable to design rudders strong enough without support over much of their length. Look at the stocks and bearing arrangements on boats of that era and you will see why support was needed. Downside (compared with spade rudders) is difficulty in building balance in the rudder to reduce steering loads. Advances in rudder stock and bearing designs mean that it is possible to design strong efficient foils as spade rudders.

I am sure of you look hard enough you will find skeg hung rudder failures - there was a spate of them (or at least failing skegs) in the 1980's. You don't hear much because "everybody" knows they don't fail so nobody makes a big thing when they do. Similarly, there are many examples of encapsulated keels giving problems, particularly if ferrous materials are used as ballast. A boat I built with encapsulated ballast needed the whole lot removing in later life because the base of the keel had worn away, water had got in and rusted the resin encapsulated steel punchings.

If the features you avocate really were superior, then they would still be available on the new boat market. While they clearly suit many people, perhaps it is as much related to the fact that such boats are now available at a fraction of the price of a new boat - of whatever type.

In 30 or 40 years time these fora will be full of arguments about how superior early 2000's boats are to those built since 2030 (or some other abritray date that defines a change in direction).
 
A bolt on iron keel is the cheapest way of making a yacht and is justifiby popular. Nothing wrong with that, everyone likes to stretch their dollar as far as possible.
The argument that's it is the best because it's the most popular does not hold up for yachts any more than most other products. Give me a Ferarri rather than a Hyundai any day.
 
Full length skegs

I had a Carter 30 with a short fin keel & full length skeg; at the time ( late 1980's ) that was supposed to be spiffing.

However I found that the skeg completely stalled the rudder at times I would have rather liked the rudder to be doing its' thing, in following surf !

I tried every trick I knew from dinghy & cruiser racing, dumping the kicker, reducing main etc, but when she wanted to broach, away she went and the rudder wouldn't stop her.

My other boat ( before and since the Carter ) has a relatively large spade rudder, with a small skeg and most of the blade exposed; I can control her in surf easily without spilling my beer or lemonade.

There is the argument that a full length skeg protects the rudder from flotsam, grounding etc, but I think control authority is the no.1 requirement, full depth skegs look rather weak to me anyway, and the spade rudder on full transom length fastenings is very strong; its' worked for 34 years - touchwood !
 
noelex said:
A bolt on iron keel is the cheapest way of making a yacht and is justifiby popular. Nothing wrong with that, everyone likes to stretch their dollar as far as possible.
The argument that's it is the best because it's the most popular does not hold up for yachts any more than most other products. Give me a Ferarri rather than a Hyundai any day.
Click to expand...

Ever tried going to work every day in traffic in a Ferrari ?

No, I haven't either, but I'm willing to research how awful it is if someone gives me a Daytona.
 
noelex said:
A bolt on iron keel is the cheapest way of making a yacht and is justifiby popular. Nothing wrong with that, everyone likes to stretch their dollar as far as possible.
The argument that's it is the best because it's the most popular does not hold up for yachts any more than most other products. Give me a Ferarri rather than a Hyundai any day.
Click to expand...

However, the almost universal use across the price and quality range of bolt on keels (not necessarily iron) suggests that the negatives that some people see are not shared by designers, builders, or buyers.

People who buy boats generally have a good idea of what they are buying and if the case for encapsulated keels and skeg hung rudders was so overwhelming, somebody would offer them, whereas the opposite has happened and buyers are choosing something different.
 
Tranona said:
However, the almost universal use across the price and quality range of bolt on keels (not necessarily iron) suggests that the negatives that some people see are not shared by designers, builders, or buyers.

People who buy boats generally have a good idea of what they are buying and if the case for encapsulated keels and skeg hung rudders was so overwhelming, somebody would offer them, whereas the opposite has happened and buyers are choosing something different.
Click to expand...

Tranona

In my opinion you are one of the good guys on here. But I cannot understand why you always bite the bait over Bavaria`s?

You should let the comments pass you by,you`r happy with your boat and I with mine and the Moody owner with theirs.
 
Last edited:
Let them knock the Bavs, they'll end up being cheaper for people like me who would like another 390 for a South American and Pacific cruise.

Just for the record I sailed a Sweden 38 that had on going structural damage and keel problems, and at the time (early 90's) there were stories of another Sweden 38 with keel problems but I never found out the full details apart from that it happened in Biscay.

I would rank a Bav 390 from 91 as equal to a HR, Sweden or Moody in construction and materials and I had a very thorough survey of mine with keel bolt checks.
 
Talulah said:
The yacht is from 1990. It's pretty well travelled.
This report can be read several ways depending upon how the boat was maintained.
1. The keel bolts lasted 22 years with no maintenance.
or
2. The keel bolts failed even though the boat was well maintained.

It would be nice to know how the keel failed.
Whilst there are many boats out there older than this one with keels still bolted on without maintenance this boat will have had significantly more bending actions than most due to the use it's been put through.
My conclusions would be:
1. Bolts were worn out and should have been replaced
or
2. Keel bolts fine but significant grounding in their history.
or
3. Repetitive drying out where loads were not distributed evenly.

I'm sure others may have suggestions but I wouldn't be prejudicing this as a Bavaria issue.
Unless the hull laminate failed.
Click to expand...

+1
 
rtboss1 said:
Tranona

In my opinion you are one of the good guys on here. But I cannot understand why you always bite the bait over Bavaria`s?

You should let the comments pass you by,you`r happy with your boat and I with mine and the Moody owner with theirs.
Click to expand...

Not specifically about Bavarias - just about undeserved prejudice. All this nonsense about "bolt on keels" being inferior and stainless steel not being suitable for keelbolts and so on - none of which stands up to any rational argument.
 
I AGAIN had a shock regarding my Bavaria today.

Mrs Bav and I are AGAIN setting off on our annual three month cruise in 'Death Trap'

AGAIN I phoned my Insurance Company.

I had cause to phone them a few years back and ask them to extend the standard cover which was as far as Brest, down to La Rochelle which they did at no extra cost.

I reminded them that it was a Bavaria but they refused my offer of extra money.

This year we might make it to the north coast of Spain, so as I said, I AGAIN phoned the brokers and requested further cover.

I WAS SHOCKED AT THEIR RESPONSE!!!

AGAIN!

'OK' they said.

'WHAT?' I said! After all 'Death Trap' is a Bavaria.

I AGAIN insisted on paying much much more as they were clearly delusional. Wouldn't you think that an Insurance Company would know about risk???

But NO. AGAIN they weren't having it.

So AGAIN I am sitting here stunned and confused.

AGAIN.

(sorry if there are too few 'agains' in this informative post but it seems an important word for the OP ... don't want to be seen to step out of line)
 
BAV34

you do not have to feel bad for the insurer. As an owner of a low price/quality boat you pay already a much higher percentage of premium as for example for a high quality boat has to be paid. Pantaenius charges me for my HR 39 1 % ./. 40 % (no claims) for the area Baltic, North-Sea, Med, 200 miles offcost down to La Rochelle and an extra of yearly € 160 for the Azores down to the Canaries. Compare that with your percentage and you will know what your insurer really thinks about your death trap.

Have a good trip and see me if your boat makes it to here. I guess fun is over now with you.

BR Klaus
 
Last edited:
Annabell said:
BAV34

you do not have to feel bad for the insurer. As an owner of a low price/quality boat you pay already a much higher percentage of premium as for example for a high quality boat has to be paid. Pantaenius charges me for my HR 39 1 % ./. 40 % (no claims) for the area Baltic, North-Sea, Med, 200 miles offcost down to La Rochelle and an extra of yearly € 160 for the Azores down to the Canaries. Compare that with your percentage and you will know what your insurer really thinks about your death trap.

Have a good trip and see me if your boat makes it to here. I guess fun is over now with you.

BR Klaus
Click to expand...

Yes you are lucky you did not get the Halberg Rassy 37,report here -
http://forums.cruisingworld.com/showthread.php?19977-Hallberg-Rassy-(HR37)-not-seaworthy!!-!!

It says -

" Re: Hallberg Rassy (HR37) - not seaworthy!!??!!
The problem as stated by three different surveyors, evidenced by plugs taken out and by ultrasonic, is that the non-sandwiched hull under the waterline is delaminated. HR have taken the position that:
1) It was not like that when the hull was made
2) I is fully natural that the samples and the ultrasonic can look like they do without the hull is delaminated
3) They will repair the hull by grinding the outer half away and then rebuild it

They do not answer at all to the fact that the hull matrix material outside the delamination is ISO-Polyester ad the inner part ORTO-polyester, in spite that the purchase specification and the yacht specification states the hull to be made using ISO only.

You know the saying: "You get what you pay for"
In this case, tragic as it is to the guy buing this HR37 for his life savings, what he seems to have been paying for is a bunch of lawyers that HR hire instead of just giving him the yacht he ordered....."


Mind you if your's was built during the same time I would want to have it checked, it does appear they are not good on quality control measures and do not take responsibility for problems. Still you could always trade it in for a Bavaria but you will have to pay extra bearing in mind the problems with Halberg Rassy's:D
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
Think there are many of the thousands of Bavaria owners who sail all round the world in who would completely disagree with such patronising and untrue statements.

BTW the Bavaria under discussion, as has been pointed out, is more than 20 years old, was built to Germanischer Lloyds and in its day was considered a very high quality boat, selling in the same market space as boats such as HR.

You have no idea how the boat has been used (other than it is well travelled), who was sailing it nor what the cause of the failure was, so how can you make any meaningful comment?
Click to expand...
Suggest you read my post in conjunction with my previous one, to which it was a sequitur.

I do take the point that the boat was an earlier example of their production and less subject to value-engineering than the later ones.

As to "patronising" in what way do you find the observed facts objectionable?
 
Annabell said:
BAV34

you do not have to feel bad for the insurer. As an owner of a low price/quality boat you pay already a much higher percentage of premium as for example for a high quality boat has to be paid. Pantaenius charges me for my HR 39 1 % ./. 40 % (no claims) for the area Baltic, North-Sea, Med, 200 miles offcost down to La Rochelle and an extra of yearly € 160 for the Azores down to the Canaries. Compare that with your percentage and you will know what your insurer really thinks about your death trap.

Have a good trip and see me if your boat makes it to here. I guess fun is over now with you.

BR Klaus
Click to expand...

Klaus - think you are ill-informed here. I had no difficulty insuring my Bavaria for a passage from Corfu to UK with a modest £85 supplement. Using %age of value is very misleading as insurance of hull and machinery (the valuable bit) is only a part of the premium, and generally falls as the value increases, as the risk essentially remains the same, it is just the cost of the consequences rises as the sum insured rises.

My current premium for the same boat, UK based with usual Brest/Elbe and including single handed is 0,56% value. This is with Bluefin, underwritten by AXA. I regularly check premiums with others and this year had quotes for similar coverage from Admiral, GJW, RKJ, Towergate (all major players) at similar premiums. Again no restriction, no special conditions, no survey required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top