Hallberg-Rassy vs Bavaria

[dunedin]

The move to wide arsed designs is to provide more accomodation not increase the performance or seakeeping qualities. One of the implications of wider sterns and the subsequent additional fit out of that space is the weight now placed aft. The designers has to adjust things. The heavy stern means the keel has to go forward to compensate. As a result of moving the keel forward, the mast has to go forward. This results in small headsails and large mains. Not necessarily a performance advantage. Just look at how far back the Imoca 60 masts are and how many headsail furlers they run if you want to see a performance rig.
The wide arsed hull is all about maximising accommodation whilst pretending the hull is following the racing boat fashion.
If you want a good motion and a seakindly hull, look at the more conservative hull designs with a deep forefoot.

Mmmm. A lot of your personal opinions and prejudices in there ……. and quite a lot of that I don’t think would stack up from a naval architecture point of view. For example, a wide stern would give more buoyancy further back, so certainly would NOT mean the keel needs to move forward. And a lot of the rest is pure supposition also.
Sure you like your boat, that is fine. But massive sweeping (and largely inaccurate) statements doesn’t help anybody.

 

[westernman]

OK sorry, I missed that bit. Just for interest though, I found Irish Sea on occasions far rougher than our Biscay crossings were.

And the Med is always like a warm smooth paddling pool:-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219878972877692928

That is a protected bay within the Gulf of Rosas next to Escala.

 

[westernman]

Personally on any boat, I would avoid in mast furling. Also I would not use furling for reefing a jib. Either, have second furler with a smaller non overlapping blade like jib or alternatively a hanked on jib with a reef point (not great for single handing).

IMHO a HR below is a bit like an old stately home. Ancient heavy solid (and mostly fairly dark) wood furniture. A bit depressing. A Bavaria is more like a modern B&B apartment - well equipped, light and airy and tastefully decorated according to the latest styles from Ikea. With furniture which looks like it came from the Ikea factory. It gives the impression of being much more roomy (actually it probably is as well).

It is a very personal choice. HR have a great following and maybe lose less value as a % per year. But they start off much more expensive, so in real terms you might lose more.

 

[geem]

Mmmm. A lot of your personal opinions and prejudices in there ……. and quite a lot of that I don’t think would stack up from a naval architecture point of view. For example, a wide stern would give more buoyancy further back, so certainly would NOT mean the keel needs to move forward. And a lot of the rest is pure supposition also.
Sure you like your boat, that is fine. But massive sweeping (and largely inaccurate) statements doesn’t help anybody.

What I said was based on an article I previously posted on this forum a couple of years ago. The article was written by an Italian yacht designer responsible for some of the most successful Volvo 70 yachts. He explained the wide sterns cruising yacht design. I think I summarised it pretty accurately

 

[ashtead]

When we came to change from our lovely Bav 34 in 2015 I would have loved to have moved up to a larger HR but when I looked at prices of the HR plus range around42ft and their age I was worried I would be investing considerable cash in an old boat which would need further expenditure so we went for a new other make -we have still bought extra kit over past 5 years but the core items namely engine,sails ,drive and deck have remained sound, we have had issues like new batteries and replacing the Fusion (useless as built in failure per many website posts) but the core boat has been sound . We have encountered poor mechanics serving engine under warranty but that’s due to engine make but otherwise no expenses apart from usual anti fouling,hull polishing etc. Which you have with any make I guess . Would a say 2000 HR been better if I had to pay out for decks,sails in mast reefing issues etc? I prefer the safety of a newer boat I guess.

 

[Tranona]

Personally on any boat, I would avoid in mast furling. Also I would not use furling for reefing a jib. Either, have second furler with a smaller non overlapping blade like jib or alternatively a hanked on jib with a reef point (not great for single handing).

IMHO a HR below is a bit like an old stately home. Ancient heavy solid (and mostly fairly dark) wood furniture. A bit depressing. A Bavaria is more like a modern B&B apartment - well equipped, light and airy and tastefully decorated according to the latest styles from Ikea. With furniture which looks like it came from the Ikea factory. It gives the impression of being much more roomy (actually it probably is as well).

It is a very personal choice. HR have a great following and maybe lose less value as a % per year. But they start off much more expensive, so in real terms you might lose more.

If you are in the market for an HR 40' or over then you will find that over 90% of them are fitted with in mast furling. roller furling foresails are pretty much universal now on cruising boats and in larger sizes (all makes) furling mainsails either in mast or in boom dominate.

 

[dunedin]

What I said was based on an article I previously posted on this forum a couple of years ago. The article was written by an Italian yacht designer responsible for some of the most successful Volvo 70 yachts. He explained the wide sterns cruising yacht design. I think I summarised it pretty accurately

Well sorry, but some of the stuff you quoted was simply wrong.
- Widening the stern and thereby moving the centre of buoyancy further aft does NOT mean needing to move the keel, and hence the centre of gravity, further forward - the opposite.
- Wide sterns do NOT mean needing to move the mast forward - look at racing (and cruising) boats with the masts often moving further aft compared to previous designs.
- The swing back to fractional rigs and higher aspect jobs is NOT related to stern shape - just look at many of the older very long and extremely narrow Scandinavian boats with precisely the same rig.
I don’t have a Bavaria, but I don‘t see the need to have generalist criticisms, particularly when inaccurate.

 

[geem]

Well sorry, but some of the stuff you quoted was simply wrong.
- Widening the stern and thereby moving the centre of buoyancy further aft does NOT mean needing to move the keel, and hence the centre of gravity, further forward - the opposite.
- Wide sterns do NOT mean needing to move the mast forward - look at racing (and cruising) boats with the masts often moving further aft compared to previous designs.
- The swing back to fractional rigs and higher aspect jobs is NOT related to stern shape - just look at many of the older very long and extremely narrow Scandinavian boats with precisely the same rig.
I don’t have a Bavaria, but I don‘t see the need to have generalist criticisms, particularly when inaccurate.

You forget that racing boats are stripped out. The Imocas have nothing in their wide sterns.
No plywood, no double mattresses, no headline panels, no cabin bulkheads, no cabin doors, no bunk bases. The fact that there is more glass in the construction to make a far larger aft section of boat also adds weight.

 

[noelex]

There is pleasure in owning a quality premium product, so I would not dismiss the HR option as readily as some, but keep in mind an older 36 foot HR will be smaller than more modern 36 foot AWB. To compare like with like, a better comparison may be a longer (say around 38 foot) HR. This will increase the cost/age difference.

 

[geem]

Mmmm. A lot of your personal opinions and prejudices in there ……. and quite a lot of that I don’t think would stack up from a naval architecture point of view. For example, a wide stern would give more buoyancy further back, so certainly would NOT mean the keel needs to move forward. And a lot of the rest is pure supposition also.
Sure you like your boat, that is fine. But massive sweeping (and largely inaccurate) statements doesn’t help anybody.

This article seems to agree with me Practical Sailor Takes a Look at Trends in Modern Boat Design - Practical Sailor

 

[Tranona]

You forget that racing boats are stripped out. The Imocas have nothing in their wide sterns.
No plywood, no double mattresses, no headline panels, no cabin bulkheads, no cabin doors, no bunk bases. The fact that there is more glass in the construction to make a far larger aft section of boat also adds weight.

I really have no idea why you are even posting this stuff (not just this diversion to racing designs) when it could not (whether it is true or not) by any stretch of the imagination having anything to do with the original question, nor indeed the subsequent discussion which was mostly relevant.

Why do you have so much difficulty in recognising that your view of what a boat should be represents a tiny minority view that is unconnected with the vast majority of people who post on here asking for advice on what to buy. Modern boats sell in the thousands (unlike the sort of boat you advocate which only ever sold in penny numbers) simply because they meet their buyers' expectations. Why do you keep on trying to tell them they are wrong? when they are all rational consumers who look at what is on offer and make their own informed decision on how to spend their hard earned cash.

Remember the original question was one that is very common - for a given amount of money should I buy an older "quality" boat or a newer mass production boat for family coastal cruising on the east coast. The answer is either - a small number of people do the former - has to be small because of limited supply and the majority do the latter. You can make a good case for either ( without even thinking about which is better in extreme weather because you won't be going there) but it is really only the individual that can make that decision. The decision might be helped by the experiences of others faced with the same choice which is what these threads should be about.

 

[westernman]

If you are in the market for an HR 40' or over then you will find that over 90% of them are fitted with in mast furling. roller furling foresails are pretty much universal now on cruising boats and in larger sizes (all makes) furling mainsails either in mast or in boom dominate.

In mast furling is dreadful for sail setting. Particularly when reefed. I would not want to give up sailing to windward because the wind piped up a bit too much to carry full sail. Slab reefing for main and jib gives a much better set than rolling anything up.

Of course other have lots more time than I do and can afford to turn around and go downwind. I am very jealous of those guys!

 

[RJJ]

I don't think that's right. There is weight aft and there is also buoyancy to support it. Looking at modern AWBs in the cradle, plenty have long bows and long J measurement

 

[Koeketiene]

In mast furling is dreadful for sail setting. Particularly when reefed.

Not to mention that it affects the stability/motion of the boat.
Leaving the weight of the sail so high up...
Regardless of the make of the boat, I would prefer slab reefing any day of the week.

 

[RJJ]

That's a poor article in my opinion. Reads like someone who doesn't like modern boats and doesn't know how they work.

Opening paragraphs tell us...more modern boats can be more sensitive to trim and sailplan than older boats. Who knew???

Later on the stuff about lead that you refer to, is simply a call to modern boats to sail a little flatter. Again, who knew?

"Obviously the rudder, too, is part of the lateral plane, but if our objective is to sail with light to neutral pressure on the helm, under normal conditions, it should not be making a significant contribution to lateral resistance. ". That could only be wrote by someone with No Idea how a rudder works - how it steers, generates lift, and how that relates to what you feel.

Then . "That said, on many racing hulls, the rudder is designed to contribute lift and has an active role in driving the boat to windward". Well duh, so does that mean we mere mortals can't use the same effect?

Don't let's get onto the poor downwind manners of some older boats

 

[Tranona]

In mast furling is dreadful for sail setting. Particularly when reefed. I would not want to give up sailing to windward because the wind piped up a bit too much to carry full sail. Slab reefing for main and jib gives a much better set than rolling anything up.

Of course other have lots more time than I do and can afford to turn around and go downwind. I am very jealous of those guys!

You clearly have no experience of a well designed in mast rig - why do you think 90% of HR owners specify it if it is so awful - never mind all the other experienced owners who choose to specify it and the designers who design boats to use it.

All this stuff about "weight high up" is nonsense. Do you seriously think that designers are not aware of this and ensure that their designs have sufficient stability for the chosen rig. Same with poor sail shape - suggest you look at what sailmakers offer to get the best out of the rig.

The views you express come from years ago when people started adding in mast to boats (many of which had poor stability anyway) that were never designed for the rig. World has changed a bit since then (30 years development).

Rather like my comments to an earlier poster perhaps you live in a world unconnected with modern boats - no problem with that, but it does seem to lead to making claims that are just not valid.

 

[jordanbasset]

Having had inmast furling on my last two boats I wouldn't want to go back.
Maybe a very marginal decrease in performance, but we'll worth it for the ease of use, especially fior the sort if sailing we do. Certainly for my wife it is a must have.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

Had the same dilemma in 2011, traditional heavier displacement, older boat or more modern AWB .... bought the Bavaria with in-mast furling and never regretted it for a millisecond. My sailing is in the Adriatic. My brother had the same dilemma in 2020 .... also bought a Bavaria for cruising the west coast of Scotland .... also very happy with his choice. Dad scoffed at the boat as it wasn`t a "real blue-water cruiser" - until he actually sailed on it.

An old HR with original screwed on teak decks is a financial crisis waiting to happen - avoid teak decks IMO.

In-mast furling is fine - mine never jammed or failed in the 10 years I've had it - keep the sails in good condition and it won't jam and will sail upwind fine - even reefed - there is a slight performance hit, but on a cruising boat it makes no difference IMO and the safety and convenience of well-maintained in-mast reefing beats a traditional main hands-down. I've sailed both and prefer in-mast - but obviously it's a preference and priorities thing again.

To be honest, when it comes to function, there is no logical reason to avoid either boat, both will ultimately do what the OP wants - neither is objectively "better" for general cruising. Aesthetics are a matter of personal choice, as are "brand" values.

I personally would rather have a newer boat because it means more time sailing and less time worrying about what needs replacing next. Apart from the hull and interior joinery, they all have the same hardware anyway, Volvo Penta, Selden, Webasto, Jabsco, Whale, etc. etc... so why buy older?

 

[rib]

You clearly have no experience of a well designed in mast rig - why do you think 90% of HR owners specify it if it is so awful - never mind all the other experienced owners who choose to specify it and the designers who design boats to use it.

All this stuff about "weight high up" is nonsense. Do you seriously think that designers are not aware of this and ensure that their designs have sufficient stability for the chosen rig. Same with poor sail shape - suggest you look at what sailmakers offer to get the best out of the rig.

The views you express come from years ago when people started adding in mast to boats (many of which had poor stability anyway) that were never designed for the rig. World has changed a bit since then (30 years development).

Rather like my comments to an earlier poster perhaps you live in a world unconnected with modern boats - no problem with that, but it does seem to lead to making claims that are just not valid.

Good day.. I do not have the technical knowledge of many on here, but I do have real life experiences... One off which I was with the surveyor when he tried to code a 47 ish for off shore work. Mainly for astro training when you had to go well off shore. With In mast furling and a mast hung radar it did not pass the test.!!!! He could not get anywhere near their figures It took months for bav to reply. Literally months. They any many other makers are a bit cagey on them. That is my experience I was there and involved in the communication to some point with bav.. Now that said I have sailed bav for over 10 years 40 plus weeks a year. And round the UK in double digests all ways the long way and all ways on time in six weeks. Once in a rib in ten days.. I put my hands up to owning and sailing a rival 41 solo currently in Turkey. Where I have replaced the tatty but non leaking teak decks. 9000 euros for 15 sq m14 mm A1 Burma teak. And I can also say in 15 years of ownership the tool kit hardly comes out and was all ways out on the bavs. I'm am in the group that believes a lively Hull must put more wear / strain on fitting and there for can cost more to up keep... I like bav for what they are and enjoyed many thounds of miles on them. My personal choice would be for the older boat if well enough looked after.. And sod the diesel costs when the wind is very light lol.. As my costs as a liveaboard for 15 years are miles away from what some people are suggesting.. May your boat take you where you want to go in the comfort you have chosen lol
.

 

[westernman]

You clearly have no experience of a well designed in mast rig - why do you think 90% of HR owners specify it if it is so awful - never mind all the other experienced owners who choose to specify it and the designers who design boats to use it.

All this stuff about "weight high up" is nonsense. Do you seriously think that designers are not aware of this and ensure that their designs have sufficient stability for the chosen rig. Same with poor sail shape - suggest you look at what sailmakers offer to get the best out of the rig.

The views you express come from years ago when people started adding in mast to boats (many of which had poor stability anyway) that were never designed for the rig. World has changed a bit since then (30 years development).

Rather like my comments to an earlier poster perhaps you live in a world unconnected with modern boats - no problem with that, but it does seem to lead to making claims that are just not valid.

I have sailed Bavarias with in mast furling. Not so concerned about the weight high up for a cruising boat, but the sail shape was dreadful for both main and jib which make it very poor to windward when reefed. It is OK when not reefed, but you give up a fair bit of sail area which is useful in the med in light winds.

I must add, that I have never sailed them in nasty weather, nor been caught out in a squall with all the main out. But in the conditions I have sailed them, the in mast furling worked well.