Beginning to think we need a bigger boat

[RunAgroundHard]

My advise would be to save hard and raise the budget to £100k. Buying a low cost older boat for size is likely to result in significant cost, otherwise the £60k boat would not be £60k.

Having went through a very similar exercise, I spent a lot more replacing worn out items than I initially assessed; easily 75% of purchase price, maybe more when everything is added up. This was mostly associated with integrity around water tightness, rigging and electrics. Much later I spent more updating sails and instruments.

Save more, buy newer, spend less overall, sail longer with more reliability and absolutely do not try and buy against your list. There are lost of great boats out there that do not meet you criteria. Teak decks accepted.

 

[michael_w]

Decide what you want the boat to do, then choose accordingly. Stick to the list of your criteria and avoid rose coloured binoculars.

In the past, I've ignored my own advice and bought a S&S Swan 40 and decided I hated it the same afternoon as I took delivery. It was sold within the same year. That's an expensive business.

 

[Tranona]

So in that link we have 2 bavarias and a sigma 362 (sold) roughly half the price of bavaria. So how different are they going to be in terms of handling and sea worthiness ? What would an extra 25-30k buy me with a bavaria that sigma doesn't have ? Not quite sure how to compare the two ?

That is a very good question and not an easy one to answer. I expected that to come up when I posted the link even though it was not my intention to find that kind of contrast. Post#79 identifies many of the general negatives of buying a near 40 year old boat rather than a 20 year old, some of which are due to the extra wear and tear, some to the design, some to the method of construction used at that time. The first of these may not apply so much to this example of a Sigma as the current owner has spent more than the asking price on replacements and upgrades in the last 5 years. This is unusual and more commonly you see boats which have much of the gear nearing the end of its life, either original or dating from an earlier upgrade 20 years ago.

As to design the first thing you will notice is the significant difference in space below and on deck arising from the 2' shorter waterline length, narrower beam and most importantly the fine pinched ends of the Sigma. It is useful to look at the Sailboatdata sheets for each, although exercise a bit of caution as not all measurements used are taking the same base but the key differences are obvious. sailboatdata.com/sailboat/sigma-362/ sailboatdata.com/sailboat/bavaria-36-2002-2004/ the Bavaria is actually over 37' long, so a "bigger" boat all round. Displacement is much the same, as is draft but ballast ratios are different at 30% compared with 40%. This reflects the differences in hull form and the design of the keel which places the ballast much lower in the Bavaria. In crude terms of the 5.5tonnes of each boat 800kgs more goes into the hull, machinery and rig in the Bavaria. The Sigma design is derived from a performance orientated one but "detuned" with a masthead rig that is very headsail driven (you can see the big winches needed to control the large overlapping genoa) whereas the Bavaria has a more balanced fractional rig, and in this example has in mast main. There is no doubt that the Sigma will potentially be a better performer, particularly to windward and in heavier weather, but harder work for the crew. In harbour there is equally no doubt the Bavaria will be much easier to live with - more space, more storage, better domestic facilities, larger sociable cockpit and drop down access through the transom for boarding or swimming. This example also has a bow thruster which will take some of the anxiety out of berthing and the saildrive (with folding prop) generally gives more predictable handling under power.

As to whether the differences justify the £30k price difference, even when the cheaper one has most of the "goodies" and seems to be in excellent conditions is really I think a reflection of the market. Boats like the Sigma are not in fashion in the way they were 20 or 30 years ago when it was very much an upmarket product. To understand that you need to set it in context and see what the alternatives were at the time. Not long after it was built new designs came in from Europe offering more of what I have highlighted with the Bavaria and killed boats like the Sigma. 10 years later the new entrants took over - boats more attuned to the changing market, mostly better built and cheaper. In real terms the Bavaria would have been almost half the price when new compared with the Sigma. Now it is the opposite. Of course there are still people who value the properties of the Sigma and can buy one at a bargain price, but the "market" favours newer style boats.

Baggywrinkle's comprehensive check list is a good way of basing your comparisons, although your detail requirements will of course be different. He does have the advantage of having owned a boat that is almost there but not big enough making it easier to identify what he wants from the next one. You however are planning quite a big jump both in terms of size, capability and cruising plans, so much is unknown about what is best for you. When I went through this process 25 years ago I had my heart set on a Moody 376 but even then was put off by the poor state of what were only 10 year old boats. I was fortunate in being able to try one in the environment I was going to use it. A year later I tried a Bavaria in the same situation - and bought one 6 months later which was an unqualified success.

Hope this helps

 

[doug748]

So in that link we have 2 bavarias and a sigma 362 (sold) roughly half the price of bavaria. So how different are they going to be in terms of handling and sea worthiness ? What would an extra 25-30k buy me with a bavaria that sigma doesn't have ? Not quite sure how to compare the two ?

It's not really fair to compare the two styles. One is a cruiser/racer, the other far more cruising orientated, I think you have to decide which suits you best and go for examples of that type

In a day's sailing you would be 12 or 15 miles behind the Sigma but the Bavaria would have lots of comfy space should you need it. The Sigma is a lovely boat but, with fine performance, you generally have to sail with more attention to detail to get it.

.

 

[flaming]

It's not really fair to compare the two styles. One is a cruiser/racer, the other far more cruising orientated, I think you have to decide which suits you best and go for examples of that type

In a day's sailing you would be 12 or 15 miles behind the Sigma but the Bavaria would have lots of comfy space should you need it. The Sigma is a lovely boat but, with fine performance, you generally have to sail with more attention to detail to get it.

.

You better tell the Island sailing club... For their handicap system used for the RTI they rated all Bavaria 36, 37 and 38s as faster than all 3 of the Sigma 362s that were entered this year, not by much, an average of about 40s per hour, but not slower....

In a days sailing, that race, the Sigmas were ahead. The fastest one took just over half an hour less than the fastest Bavaria. So at 6 knots or so speed, about 3 miles ahead. But that's well within the expected deviation of crew skill etc. OD classes had much bigger splits than that.
Sigmas are great boats, but by modern standards they're really not all that quick.

 

[doug748]

You better tell the Island sailing club... For their handicap system used for the RTI they rated all Bavaria 36, 37 and 38s as faster than all 3 of the Sigma 362s that were entered this year, not by much, an average of about 40s per hour, but not slower....

In a days sailing, that race, the Sigmas were ahead. The fastest one took just over half an hour less than the fastest Bavaria. So at 6 knots or so speed, about 3 miles ahead. But that's well within the expected deviation of crew skill etc. OD classes had much bigger splits than that.
Sigmas are great boats, but by modern standards they're really not all that quick.

Confirms what I always thought, cruising boats like the Bavarias are badly handicapped.

The results are a handy confirmation, I always rate actual performances, Around the Island, as the best way to get a grip on how boats actually perform.

.

 

[flaming]

Confirms what I always thought, cruising boats like the Bavarias are badly handicapped.

The results are a handy confirmation, I always rate actual performances, Around the Island, as the best way to get a grip on how boats actually perform.

.

To be honest, I don't really buy that. The Sigmas were sold, and are still seen, as a cruiser racer. They will therefore tend to attract that type of sailor. The Bavaria is marketed as a cruiser, and will attract that type of sailor...

A half hour delta is well within the difference that a crew can make. We were over an hour ahead of a sister ship, and there was a full 2.5 hours between the 1st and last Sigma 38 for example.

If Sigmas were, as you claimed, 12 miles ahead over a day's sailing with similar crew skill, then you'd expect the Sigma 362 to be over 2 hours ahead of the Bavaria 37s after 10 hours racing. Probably more given that it is more likely that the Sigma's crew are more frequent racers. The lead 362, for example, also raced at Cowes this year, where it won the Cruiser C class... I can't immediately see any race results other than RTI for any of the bavarias.

 

[SaltyC]

Tin hat on! Is it possible that the Sigmas are sailed by those who pay attention to sail trim and buy / sail but a racer cruiser for sailing pleasure and to extract the maximum performance where Bavarias are mainly bought / sailed by cruisers having a pleasant day out?
The performance of individual boats in my experience is more down to the crew and the quality / condition of the sails than the boats potential performance.

 

[johnalison]

Confirms what I always thought, cruising boats like the Bavarias are badly handicapped.

The results are a handy confirmation, I always rate actual performances, Around the Island, as the best way to get a grip on how boats actually perform.

.

Bavarias are, like all newer boats, long waterline designs. This means that they will probably cruise faster than the Sigma because most of the sailing or motor-sailing will be downwind. The Sigma would probably beat all of them upwind, because that is what it was designed to do, with a hefty spinnaker to compensate when going downwind. As said, the Sigma was a sailor’s boat, while Bavs are of course sailed by buffers.

 

[doug748]

Tin hat on! Is it possible that the Sigmas are sailed by those who pay attention to sail trim and buy / sail but a racer cruiser for sailing pleasure and to extract the maximum performance where Bavarias are mainly bought / sailed by cruisers having a pleasant day out?
The performance of individual boats in my experience is more down to the crew and the quality / condition of the sails than the boats potential performance.

Which is the thrust of Flaming's point.

However I am not fully convinced. I have looked at the results and see the fastest Sigma 362 went round in c 9h 30. Looking at the Bavaria Owners, where we assume most of the "family" racers go, the fastest comparable boat was over and hour behind and the average probably about 1.5 hours. That is in nominally 10 hours of sailing.

Regardless, I don't see anything that would question the general sentiments of post 84.

.

 

[baart]

Let me put it this way, we don't always avoid difficult conditions but look for certain level of comfort were they to happen. I wouldn't say our aim is to only cruise from marina to marina in a nice weather. I am looking for a boat that gives certainty it can handle a heavier weather if it happens. Not deliberately seeking it but not being too afraid of it either. I would rather compromise on accommodation than on seaworthiness hence my thinking about a heavier boat with more ballast. And those boats I have mentioned earlier seem to provide enough accommodation comfort for our needs anyway. Possibly I don't understand how the new designs perform in such conditions in comparison to the old and that's where the problem stems from. Appreciate there might be a significant expense required to get for example a Sigma to a desired standard but can see the potential benefit of this expense if it's a safer boat. But maybe it isn't.

What I am trying to understand is if given let's say a Bavaria 36 and Sigma 362 or Malo 38 and Bavaria 38 would I see a significant enough difference in comfort in force 8 and bigger waves that would justify going for the older and heavier design ? If not then it simplifies the decision process and the newer naturally wins. In which boat would you rather be in a blow offshore ?

 

[chris-s]

Might it be that there are so many variables in play that it’s not as simple to say which is best in some theoretical condition. The approach we took was what is the best boat for us and 95% of our ‘use’ scenarios. We take the approach to avoid uncomfortable conditions as much as possible but realise we might unintentionally get caught out, but the boat we chose, as would any of the others we considered, survive equally well.

 

[johnalison]

Let me put it this way, we don't always avoid difficult conditions but look for certain level of comfort were they to happen. I wouldn't say our aim is to only cruise from marina to marina in a nice weather. I am looking for a boat that gives certainty it can handle a heavier weather if it happens. Not deliberately seeking it but not being too afraid of it either. I would rather compromise on accommodation than on seaworthiness hence my thinking about a heavier boat with more ballast. And those boats I have mentioned earlier seem to provide enough accommodation comfort for our needs anyway. Possibly I don't understand how the new designs perform in such conditions in comparison to the old and that's where the problem stems from. Appreciate there might be a significant expense required to get for example a Sigma to a desired standard but can see the potential benefit of this expense if it's a safer boat. But maybe it isn't.

What I am trying to understand is if given let's say a Bavaria 36 and Sigma 362 or Malo 38 and Bavaria 38 would I see a significant enough difference in comfort in force 8 and bigger waves that would justify going for the older and heavier design ? If not then it simplifies the decision process and the newer naturally wins. In which boat would you rather be in a blow offshore ?

That’s what I thought when I retired and we went off for longer cruises without rushing to get back for the Monday. We‘ll just go where the wind takes us and stick to fine weather. I can assure you that it doesn’t work out that way. After a day or two in harbour everyone develops port-sickness and you will get the urge to move on regardless. In the first couple of years of extended cruising we sailed in enough foul weather to last a lifetime. However much of a purist you are, I would get a boat that motors well and will look after you in a blow and isn’t too flighty unless you are prepared to put the extra effort in.

 

[SaltyC]

Let me put it this way, we don't always avoid difficult conditions but look for certain level of comfort were they to happen. I wouldn't say our aim is to only cruise from marina to marina in a nice weather. I am looking for a boat that gives certainty it can handle a heavier weather if it happens. Not deliberately seeking it but not being too afraid of it either. I would rather compromise on accommodation than on seaworthiness hence my thinking about a heavier boat with more ballast. And those boats I have mentioned earlier seem to provide enough accommodation comfort for our needs anyway. Possibly I don't understand how the new designs perform in such conditions in comparison to the old and that's where the problem stems from. Appreciate there might be a significant expense required to get for example a Sigma to a desired standard but can see the potential benefit of this expense if it's a safer boat. But maybe it isn't.

What I am trying to understand is if given let's say a Bavaria 36 and Sigma 362 or Malo 38 and Bavaria 38 would I see a significant enough difference in comfort in force 8 and bigger waves that would justify going for the older and heavier design ? If not then it simplifies the decision process and the newer naturally wins. In which boat would you rather be in a blow offshore ?

On that criteria I would go with the Sigma or Malo - but I am of an age.

 

[dunedin]

……..

What I am trying to understand is if given let's say a Bavaria 36 and Sigma 362 or Malo 38 and Bavaria 38 would I see a significant enough difference in comfort in force 8 and bigger waves that would justify going for the older and heavier design ? If not then it simplifies the decision process and the newer naturally wins. In which boat would you rather be in a blow offshore ?

How often do you go out in F8 winds? With modern forecasts, most cruisers now choose to sit out proper gales and storms in a safe harbour or anchorage.
On the other hand, a boat that is fun to sail in F1-F6 and comfortable at the end of the voyage may be preferable.
(And don’t assume a more modern boat like the Bavaria can’t handle the rough weather - when the wind is up it is generally only the sailing school and charter boats that are out, and they are generally the modern boats.)

 

[Minerva]

30 footer with an 11m mast needs a 10mm halyard of 26m = £65
40 footer with a 13m mast needs a 12mm halyard of 31m = 108.50

Each has 4 halyards so £260 vs £434 and that's assuming doublebraid and ignoring the other 20 lines on board, all of which are longer and thicker on the bigger boat.

30 footer has LWL 8m x beam 3m = 24sq m antifoul = £89.95
40 footer has LWL 10m x beam 4m = 40sq m antifoul = £179.90

That's just two regular consumable items but the list goes on in a similar manner.

Oi! Less of that you!

I’ve currently got a 10m boat and I’m convincing myself that going up to 12.5m (biggest that will fit on the swinging mooring I own) won’t be that much of a cost jump. You coming along and damaging the foundations of my man maths is not appreciated!

In seriousness for a minute, mooring costs during the summer would remain same for both boats. Both have 12mm dyneema halyards so the only cost difference is the length. Same with sheets - no reason not keep same diameter.

Antifouling, sure, that would be more but I’m sure some more man maths will find stumping up for coppercoat on the bigger boat to be better value than the shogun on the 10m boat.

 

[baart]

How often do you go out in F8 winds?

Deliberately rarely. But thinking in terms of margins of safety I really liked the experience of comfort and safety in a heavy boat and would like to have it on my future boat.

when the wind is up it is generally only the sailing school and charter boats that are out, and they are generally the modern boats.)

valid point. thank you

 

[Tranona]

Deliberately rarely. But thinking in terms of margins of safety I really liked the experience of comfort and safety in a heavy boat and would like to have it on my future boat.

valid point. thank you

The margin of safety of the boat is huge - far in excess of yours! That is you will fall short way before the boat does. Lets face it, all boats are uncomfortable in heavy weather, but none of the size you are looking at are incapable of handling it whether they be heavy or lighter. The myth that older heavier boats are "better" is just that - perpetuated largely because effectively you can't buy them new any more. As I said earlier (and reinforced by the comment about charter boats and sailing school) if modern boats were less good how have all the new boat buyers managed over the last 30 years.

It is true though that 30 or 40 years ago performance in heavy weather was much more highly "valued" than it is today because sailing was essentially a challenging pastime. Boats were advertised as suitable for all weather passage racing or adventure sailing because that was where the market was. Of course all long before good weather forecasting, accurate position fixing, immediate communication and an all encompassing rescue service, particularly in N European waters. Claims that small boats were capable of crossing the Atlantic or suitable for JOG passage racing were the cornerstone of many builders promotions. The 1979 Fastnet disaster played a big part in focusing minds on heavy weather and exposed the failings of many designs at the time, including many that we would now consider heavy displacement. What came out of it though was a recognition of the importance of stability which underpinned the RCD stability standards and demonstrated that it was mainly a function of design and not weight.

This myth is embedded in the yachting culture particularly in the UK and to an extent in the US but largely alien in Europe which in general came late into the leisure yachting scene and missed out on what I described above. So no surprise that their approach and design of boats was different - bit of a generalisation but broadly true. UK builders found their products losing appeal as even died in the wool UK buyers soon recognised the attractions of the newer designs. I was buying in the tail end of that transition when, for example the last of the Westerlys, the Ocean 33 was over £100k and a fully specced Bavaria 34 was £70k. Of course buyers were sceptical, but the new designs soon showed they were quite capable of fulfilling the role of an all weather cruiser.

The feeling of comfort and safety with a heavy boat is, I think largely illusory - just as the adjective "heavy" is misleading. Look at the figures that I gave earlier. The Sigma and the Bavaria weigh virtually the same at around 5.5 tones. My Bav 33 (and 37) were both 5,5 tonnes. The difference is where the weight is. Older boats have more weight in the keel because they need it to stay upright. By and large the stability curves are similar - although it is difficult to directly compare because older boats were never subject to stability analysis as newer boats are. However many 70s and 80s boats with the type of keel and ballast ratio the Sigma has were short of stability. Unsurprising because the IOR rule which influenced a lot of designs penalised stability. I have seen stability curves for some well known older designs that suggest the boats would not get into Cat A. Indeed my own boat a GH 31 which has a reputation as a very successful ocean passage maker has relatively poor stability and the last few needed substantial modification to get into Cat A. That also weighs close to 5.5 tonnes - very heavy displacement by any standards but I don't "feel" any more safe in that than I did in my Bavarias.

You may find these 2 interesting. Both have cruised extensively in their Bavarias (but could have been any other production boats) one smaller and one larger than the size you are looking at. Their experiences speak for their capability and that of their boats in a wide range of conditions - far in excess of anything you are likely to experience. You can also find lots of examples in books, blogs, youtubes magazine articles of people doing similar things in a wide range of types of boats and you quickly realise it is the crew that is more important than the choice of boat. Boats are always a compromise - hence the importance of trying to identify what is important to you and the way you are going to use the boat.
youtube.com/channel/UCEZSvXwSH6flqA0q_EEDDBQ/videos
mjambo.de

 

[Zing]

The margin of safety of the boat is huge - far in excess of yours! That is you will fall short way before the boat does. Lets face it, all boats are uncomfortable in heavy weather, but none of the size you are looking at are incapable of handling it whether they be heavy or lighter. The myth that older heavier boats are "better" is just that - perpetuated largely because effectively you can't buy them new any more. As I said earlier (and reinforced by the comment about charter boats and sailing school) if modern boats were less good how have all the new boat buyers managed over the last 30 years.

It is true though that 30 or 40 years ago performance in heavy weather was much more highly "valued" than it is today because sailing was essentially a challenging pastime. Boats were advertised as suitable for all weather passage racing or adventure sailing because that was where the market was. Of course all long before good weather forecasting, accurate position fixing, immediate communication and an all encompassing rescue service, particularly in N European waters. Claims that small boats were capable of crossing the Atlantic or suitable for JOG passage racing were the cornerstone of many builders promotions. The 1979 Fastnet disaster played a big part in focusing minds on heavy weather and exposed the failings of many designs at the time, including many that we would now consider heavy displacement. What came out of it though was a recognition of the importance of stability which underpinned the RCD stability standards and demonstrated that it was mainly a function of design and not weight.

This myth is embedded in the yachting culture particularly in the UK and to an extent in the US but largely alien in Europe which in general came late into the leisure yachting scene and missed out on what I described above. So no surprise that their approach and design of boats was different - bit of a generalisation but broadly true. UK builders found their products losing appeal as even died in the wool UK buyers soon recognised the attractions of the newer designs. I was buying in the tail end of that transition when, for example the last of the Westerlys, the Ocean 33 was over £100k and a fully specced Bavaria 34 was £70k. Of course buyers were sceptical, but the new designs soon showed they were quite capable of fulfilling the role of an all weather cruiser.

The feeling of comfort and safety with a heavy boat is, I think largely illusory - just as the adjective "heavy" is misleading. Look at the figures that I gave earlier. The Sigma and the Bavaria weigh virtually the same at around 5.5 tones. My Bav 33 (and 37) were both 5,5 tonnes. The difference is where the weight is. Older boats have more weight in the keel because they need it to stay upright. By and large the stability curves are similar - although it is difficult to directly compare because older boats were never subject to stability analysis as newer boats are. However many 70s and 80s boats with the type of keel and ballast ratio the Sigma has were short of stability. Unsurprising because the IOR rule which influenced a lot of designs penalised stability. I have seen stability curves for some well known older designs that suggest the boats would not get into Cat A. Indeed my own boat a GH 31 which has a reputation as a very successful ocean passage maker has relatively poor stability and the last few needed substantial modification to get into Cat A. That also weighs close to 5.5 tonnes - very heavy displacement by any standards but I don't "feel" any more safe in that than I did in my Bavarias.

You may find these 2 interesting. Both have cruised extensively in their Bavarias (but could have been any other production boats) one smaller and one larger than the size you are looking at. Their experiences speak for their capability and that of their boats in a wide range of conditions - far in excess of anything you are likely to experience. You can also find lots of examples in books, blogs, youtubes magazine articles of people doing similar things in a wide range of types of boats and you quickly realise it is the crew that is more important than the choice of boat. Boats are always a compromise - hence the importance of trying to identify what is important to you and the way you are going to use the boat.
youtube.com/channel/UCEZSvXwSH6flqA0q_EEDDBQ/videos
mjambo.de

Oops. You didn't read the latest post from Martin Daldrup in S/V Jambo did you?

He was recently rescued by a freighter in the South Atlantic having had to resort to his life raft. His beloved Bavaria sank:

Das Sinken der “Jambo”: Skipper Daldrup erklärt, warum die Bavaria auf Tiefe ging | SegelReporter

He was cruising in F5, heard a loud bang, then the saloon flooded. He launched the liferaft and was luckily picked up after only 18 hrs. He doesn't know what caused it, but guesses it was a collision with something that broke his rudder.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

Oops. You didn't read the latest post from Martin Daldrup in S/V Jambo did you?

He was recently rescued by a freighter in the South Atlantic having had to resort to his life raft. His beloved Bavaria sank:

Das Sinken der “Jambo”: Skipper Daldrup erklärt, warum die Bavaria auf Tiefe ging | SegelReporter

He was cruising in F5, heard a loud bang, then the saloon flooded. He launched the liferaft and was luckily picked up after only 18 hrs. He doesn't know what caused it, but guesses it was a collision with something that broke his rudder.

Oh my goodness, that's it settled then, I mean nothing ever hit a submerged object and sank in the good old days, would never have happened to an older design ....

I read the article, and what he actually said was ...

I suspect that an underwater collision tore off the rudder and also tore a hole in the hull at the stern. Hence the loud bang. Jambo quickly filled up and initially listed to starboard. A hole may also have been torn in the starboard hull.

He went on to say ...

Having to give up Jambo is very difficult for me. We sailed together for many years and experienced so much. I lovingly fitted her out over the years and invested a lot of time, work and money in her. In the end she was finished, I was able to sail very long passages with her and she was a cozy and comfortable home for me. I sailed almost 7000 nm with her from New York without any technical problems.

.... sounds like a typical sailor very sad at the loss of his beloved boat rather than an argument supporting an older design over a newer one.