beneteau & Bavaria quality issues?

pvb said:
Over and over again we see people posting erroneous information about "lightweight" AWBs and the "heavier" Scandinavian boats. The facts simply don't support this folklore.

I have a Bavaria Cruiser 37. It's 11.30m long, 10.22m waterline, 3.67m beam. It weighs 7000kg including 2080kg ballast, so the hull itself weighs 4920kg.

Before buying, I also looked at the Hallberg-Rassy 372. That's 11.35m long, 10.25m waterline, 3.60m beam. So very nearly the same size. It weighs 7500kg including 2900kg ballast, so the hull weighs 4600kg - less than the Bavaria.
Click to expand...

That's a great calculation, but just how accurate is it? The published overall weights for most yachts are suspiciously round number figures. So is your Bavaria really 7000kg or 7000kg plus or minus a few percent. Let's say 5%, so +-350kg. Then I bet that the interior fitout of the HR is considerably heavier than the flatpack stuff in the BenJenBav . I have no idea of the total (call it x), but let's guess a difference of 250kg. The comparable numbers could then become:
HR (light): (7500-375)-(x+250)-2900= (3975-x) kg hull weight.
Bav (light): (7000-350)-x-2080= (4570-x) kg hull weight.
HR (heavy): (7500+375)-(x+250)-2900= (4725-x) kg hull weight.
Bav (heavy): (7000+350)-x-2080= (5270-x) kg hull weight.

Have I successfully confused everyone?:encouragement:
Peter
 
Resolution said:
That's a great calculation, but just how accurate is it? The published overall weights for most yachts are suspiciously round number figures. So is your Bavaria really 7000kg or 7000kg plus or minus a few percent. Let's say 5%, so +-350kg. Then I bet that the interior fitout of the HR is considerably heavier than the flatpack stuff in the BenJenBav . I have no idea of the total (call it x), but let's guess a difference of 250kg. The comparable numbers could then become:
HR (light): (7500-375)-(x+250)-2900= (3975-x) kg hull weight.
Bav (light): (7000-350)-x-2080= (4570-x) kg hull weight.
HR (heavy): (7500+375)-(x+250)-2900= (4725-x) kg hull weight.
Bav (heavy): (7000+350)-x-2080= (5270-x) kg hull weight.

Have I successfully confused everyone?:encouragement:
Click to expand...

You haven't confused me; you seem to agree that in both of your cases the Bavaria is more heavily built.
 
davidjackson said:
Who mentioned crusing the world on a budget, I didn’t spot that one :)

I suspect that the vast majority of PBO forum users are not world cruisers, nor do they desire to be so.
Click to expand...

I was replying to post #32 where it was stated that AWB could be found cruising the Artic and everywhere else. I stated that if you choose to cruise the world on a budget boat, expect to do more maintenance. I never mentioned cruising the world on a budget. That will be why you didnt spot that one......would you like to borrow my readying glasses :-)
 
dom said:
The usual naysayers here appear unable to shake off a dose of post-purchase rationalisation of whatever old vessel they happen to own.

Yet since their heyday, the niche cottage industries of the 1970s-1990s have given way to a small number of well capitalised business with the ability to invest in, design and construct quality boats, fitted out with generic third party equipment, and targeted to specific price and usage points. A bit like Skoda, VW, Audi, Porsche, and Lamborghini, all of which are owned by the VW group

Since the 1970s/80s, much progress has been made from resins, rigs, sails, electronic equipment, foil design, rudder bearings, load structures, hull shape, running rigging, etc. What's left is the woodwork, where old techniques still reign supreme for those wising to pay for it.

Same applies to expensive watches, probably why many on here will own both say a Rolex and Casio in full knowledge that the Casio tells the time better.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. Though to be fair, as well as nice cupboards you also get a lead keel and closed cell core in the layup. Hard to justify on a value for money basis, though
 
pvb said:
Over and over again we see people posting erroneous information about "lightweight" AWBs and the "heavier" Scandinavian boats. The facts simply don't support this folklore.

I have a Bavaria Cruiser 37. It's 11.30m long, 10.22m waterline, 3.67m beam. It weighs 7000kg including 2080kg ballast, so the hull itself weighs 4920kg.

Before buying, I also looked at the Hallberg-Rassy 372. That's 11.35m long, 10.25m waterline, 3.60m beam. So very nearly the same size. It weighs 7500kg including 2900kg ballast, so the hull weighs 4600kg - less than the Bavaria.
Click to expand...
Its what's in the figures is confusing eg ,X boats include all the inner frame up to the mast shroud Anchorage as ballast.

I bought 3 new AWBs between 1998 and 2005 and had a spreadsheet of about 20 boats with various data including ballast ratio, AVS, length, gross weight,dry weight etc. One interesting factor was price/kg and at that time HR, Najad etc were heavier for any given length. This is the age of boat the OP is looking at.

I would prefer lead keel but not an available option on our Jeanneau.

Final point is maintenance. As originally on charter our boat was regularly used and well maintained. Been our own boat for last 5yrs and refurbished many bits. It now has all new off white leather saloon upholstery and a new saloon teak and holly floor fitted to a much higher quality than the original with consistent narrow gaps, even around the curved parts and recessed fittings. Our cabin has a tailor fitted 250 thick pocket sprung mattress.
SWMBO sleeps better on the boat than at home! As such a boat from 2000 vintage while used can be better in some ways than when first built.

We had been looking at the Jeanneau 43DS for many years but rushed out to buy it when we learnt they were stopping production. There were 2 reasons to buy for us. We loved the 4 cabin layout and the flexibility to turn the front cabin and bunk beds into a master cabin with en-suite by design with its removable bulkhead but more importantly it was one of the last production boats with a hull and an internal structure of ribs and beams. To save weight and cost production AWBs have changed to an inner hull of an egg crate construction and an outer hull both bonded together. For me the problem with this is that you can't see any damage or debonding after any incident where ours the structure is visible and accessible if ever needing repairs. As a structural engineer I prefer the older more expensive type of construction. Better still IMHO is the inner galvanised steel structure that X boats and Arcona use but my budget could not stretch to those.

All boats are a compromise with budget being a factor for most of us when new but even more when old. A rebuild project can be interesting if you have the skills but do you want a project or to go sailing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top