Tranona
Well-Known Member
I have and it is patronising and untrue. The only "facts" in this case is that the boat was a Bavaria and it sank. Anything else is just speculation.
Things do not become "facts" just because you pass an opinion.
Bavaria lost keel again
- Thread starter Annabell
- Start date
I have and it is patronising and untrue. The only "facts" in this case is that the boat was a Bavaria and it sank. Anything else is just speculation.
Things do not become "facts" just because you pass an opinion.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
You may be unaware that your high quality HR has brass seacocks. When this potentially serious under-specification of critical equipment was drawn to the attention of the management of the company, their response was that it was up to owners to check that they were still fit for purpose.
To the best of my knowledge Bavaria fit seacocks that are fit for purpose, made from materials that resist dezincification.
noelex
Well-Known Member
How do manufactures get away with using these substandard materials? There are so many cases where for an extra few dollars the manufacturer could save the owners hours of work and expense that is a few orders of magnitude greater than the cost of doing it right in first place. There is no excuse, particuarly from a premium boatbuilder taking these shortcuts.
Someone will tell me HR use 304 SS for their keel bolts next.
Talulah
Well-Known Member
Just Google for "Hallberg Rassy brass seacocks" and you'll see it's not just HR.
The RCD requirement is for corrosion resistance of 5 years.
i.e.
http://www.thecruisingkitty.com/2011/11/wrong-seacocks-can-sink-your-boat.html
Mr Cassandra
Well-Known Member
Posted on the Internet .so it must be right!!!!
HR use 304 SS for their keel bolts.....
I don't really know, but most thing said on a Bavaria thread is conjecture,or rumour mongering
Annabell
New Member
good morning
@ jordanbasset
your statement is just guesswork ! The HR 37 owner lost his case in court and withdraw his revision. We never heard again about it.
@ Tranona
Pantaenius grants as well low percentage -as HR owners are getting- for small boats with low value as for excample for a Bandholm 27, with much lower value as a Bav 34 has, but a Bav will never get that rate because of their multiple claims. Just ask them.
@ vyv cox
No idea what material my seacocks are made from, but they are from 1996 and in perfect condition. Checked them yearly inside and out and nothing was to replace up to now. But that´s what you should can expect I think. The difference to the younger HR´s: they are not only build to LLoyds regulations, the older HR´s were checked five times during the building by Lloyds.
BR Klaus
@ jordanbasset
your statement is just guesswork ! The HR 37 owner lost his case in court and withdraw his revision. We never heard again about it.
@ Tranona
Pantaenius grants as well low percentage -as HR owners are getting- for small boats with low value as for excample for a Bandholm 27, with much lower value as a Bav 34 has, but a Bav will never get that rate because of their multiple claims. Just ask them.
@ vyv cox
No idea what material my seacocks are made from, but they are from 1996 and in perfect condition. Checked them yearly inside and out and nothing was to replace up to now. But that´s what you should can expect I think. The difference to the younger HR´s: they are not only build to LLoyds regulations, the older HR´s were checked five times during the building by Lloyds.
BR Klaus
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Then change insurers. I have received quotes from all sorts of insurers in addition to the ones I mentioned and have never had any who charge a higher premium because of the boat. It may well be that some small insurers have suffered disproportionate losses in one type of business, so it would be sensible for them to control that risk. However, it does not mean that such boats are systemically higher risk.
On the subject of seacocks, your "old" boat (ie pre RCD) may well have DZR (or even bronze) valves and fittings, as did most boats at the time. However, the RCD allows lower grade brasses to be used, and many builders (including HR) changed to brass because it is substantially cheaper. In most cases it is not a problem, but as the number of boats fitted with this type of seacock has increased, as has the time they have been in service, so the number of failures, particularly fittings rather than valves has increased. There is strong pressure, so far unsuccessful to change the RCD standard, and while the standard stays builders will continue to fit low quality seacocks and fittings.
Bav34
...
Annabell; said:
Bavaria 34.
Covered for £55,000.
Premium £265
GJW Insurance
0.48 %
So your next incorrect fact is .... ?
Annabell
New Member
You are wrong, Tranona !
SV Petra´s keel first came loose and just after they left the boat the keel fall off and the boat capsized.
This the owner reported on 26.5.12 on page 50 in his diary, see:
www:sy-petra.dk/
You do not have to be able to speak danish to understand his message .
Where is the speculation in this statement ?
Klaus
Annabell
New Member
My last english lesson lies 50 years back, but for the moment I think that I can better read and understand your language than you do !
My statement was, that Pantaenius would not insure any Bav to terms they grant HR´s or Bandholm´s.
And you should not compare apples with pears, Pantaenius covers much more than GJW as I found out myself.
BR Klaus
Last edited:
Bav34
...
Sorry Klaus, I'm sure my English is better than yours.
Your first sentence above contradicts what you have just posted and your second one is just gibberish.
Hmmm.
Sense of superiority.
Called Klaus.
Surely you can't be a ... No, that would be too predictable.
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
First will not go into the irony that my 'statement is just guesswork !' when we have a report of a Bavaria whose keel fell off and no idea as to why, your whole story is guesswork.
Secondly you were right the owners lost the case, a report is here
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=115636
"Dear Sirs,
A legal case in Sweden has just been closed, concerning the delamination of a brand new Hallberg Rassy 37 Yacht, Mia Maria.
The court judged the non evidenced verbal statements of Mr. Magnus Rassy and Mr. Christof Rassy about the delamination more credible than the examnation results about the delamination made by two professional test engieneers, two professional and renowned surveyours and one professor of lamination technology. The Rassys point blank refuse to admit the delamination. So, the owner of Mia Maria lost, but most of the reason for that seemed to be that he did not leave the yacht fully in the hands of Hallberg Rassy for their actions.
The delamination status have made the Insurance company for the yacht to state that if yacht is lost due to the damages, Insurance will not cover loss.
Needless to say, the court and jury are located near the Hallberg Rassy yard.
There are rumours in circulation by locals at the village for the hull production site about systematic failures in hull production made by Hallberg Rassy at the production date for Mia Maria (ignorance about environmentally friendly polyester vax effects) and also about Hallberg Rassy having by mistake ordered and used the wrong typ of resin.
This entry is meant to alert other Hallberg Rassy buyers of newer yachts produced between 2007 and now about the potential problem, and to thourougly examine their hulls under and above the waterline by means of Ultrasonic or other methods. Hopefully the US legal system allows owners for corrective actions or compensation in cases like this.
....I've had contact with both Goran Lowbeer (now retired) and Magnus Rassy WRT technical support on my boat. They've always been helpful and responsive - and I am the 3rd owner on a 13 year old boat. Of course I wasn't going for warranty support but I've always gotten good answers and help when I needed it.
I find the technical issues disturbing, as I've seen nothing at all like that on my '97 boat. But like all boat companies (particularly high end companies) HR has been experiencing some hard times and laid a bunch of people off a while back. It's not inconceivable production has taken a hit as well.
The lack of response is a complete enigma, these guys have a rep for standing by their boats and building a top quality product.
Talking to a former employee of another high profile high end boat builder that I won't mention, her comments were "yeah, everyone around here knows things have gone to hell over there and their boats aren't what they used to be". According to her cost cutting, staff & experience drain, etc."
Now we will never know the full truth but at the very least this was not handled well. Before you start flinging mud just check your own house is in order.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
It is not that "fact" that I was questioning, it was the other statements made by the poster (which were his own personal opinions) that I was questioning - and which were only related to this sad event because of the name "Bavaria".
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is perfectly reasonable for an insurance company to price its cover at whatever level it wants, and accept or reject any types of boat or other risk that it chooses to.
This does not mean that you cannot get cover elsewhere for the same risks at the same, or lower, or higher cost. Many insurers give preferential treatment to particular classes of client, which might depend on make of boat, membership of an organisation, level of qualification - indeed any characteristic that suggests they are a good risk or offer the type of business the company is looking for.
Insurers take into account a whole range of factors, of which type of boat is only a minor one - depending on the type of cover you want. I would not expect to get cover for my Bavaria for sailing in high latititudes, for example, because it would not be the best choice of boat and I do not have the experience. However, I, like many others get good cover for off shore sailing in middle latitudes. Companies are more interested in my experience, the level of equipment and state of maintenance, and my plans for the passage than the actual make of boat. Having 30 years experiences with virtually no claims and owning the boat for a number of years gives them confidence that I am a good risk.
Your insurer does indeed generally offer "better" cover than others and charges substantially more for that cover, irrespective of the make of the boat. It is up to the individual to decide whether that is what they want. Presumably many, like me, choose not to pay the additional premium on the basis that the cover we currently have is adequate.
jonic
Well-Known Member
I have had a couple of Bavarias through the brokerage recently, and yes of course they are not HR's but I rather liked them. All this hysteria is way overplayed imho. Bolt on keels can fall off for a number of reasons. I have come across other marques that would be well behind a Bav on my choice list.
cynthia
Well-Known Member
Bavs
Well, I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again. Our Bav 34 got us from Pwellhi to Greece in comfort and safety. We never had any doubts about the boat, even crossing Biscay even if the seas were a bit lumpy. Now doing us proud in the Ionian, which we're loving. OK the sailing isn't as challenging as some of the trips we made in the boat earlier, but we are more than contented with our choice of boat.
I don't think the Bavs has ever warranted the 'marina based/ caravan' type comments so often made by other forumites. As far as I know the keel is still attached!
Well, I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again. Our Bav 34 got us from Pwellhi to Greece in comfort and safety. We never had any doubts about the boat, even crossing Biscay even if the seas were a bit lumpy. Now doing us proud in the Ionian, which we're loving. OK the sailing isn't as challenging as some of the trips we made in the boat earlier, but we are more than contented with our choice of boat.
I don't think the Bavs has ever warranted the 'marina based/ caravan' type comments so often made by other forumites. As far as I know the keel is still attached!
Talulah
Well-Known Member
It's not the keel on a Bav34 you need to worry about.
http://www.syharbour.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=248&Itemid=7
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/bavaria/52122-bavaria-34-bulk-head-shifting-problems.html
Following not a Bavaria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv2okiEKPrA
Last edited:
cynthia
Well-Known Member
Thanks Talulah
I enjoyed the links. Good to see positive comments from other owners.
I enjoyed the links. Good to see positive comments from other owners.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>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.
I'm not sure that makes sense. About 500 to 600 yachts cross the Atlantic each year and the vast majority don't go around the world. In next year's ARC there are 258 boats of which 9 are Bavarias, 0.034%. In the Pacific over 50% of the boats are metal.
I'm not sure that makes sense. About 500 to 600 yachts cross the Atlantic each year and the vast majority don't go around the world. In next year's ARC there are 258 boats of which 9 are Bavarias, 0.034%. In the Pacific over 50% of the boats are metal.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I will rephrase that - had not intended to suggest "round the world" sailors in the sense you are. Owners who sail in Australia, New Zealand, North America and every European country. In other words there are thousands around providing service in a whole range of sailing environments. Since 1999 or so when they changed to high volume production they have made well over 20000 yachts in the 30-50ft range. Awful lot of customers, some of whom are presumably very pleased with their boats.
BTW you got your decimal in the wrong place - it is 3.4%. Have not checked but think you will find it has been higher in previous years - such is fashion!