Keel cracks

[csharpatsea]

If you only want to do coastal cruising in light and moderate weather then boats like bavarias are fine. But I have to say personally that if I was caught in a gale offshore in a bavaria I would be absolutely bricking it.

Why?

Having sailed my Bavaria through 40kts offshore I would be more worried handling the same conditions in a typical 30 year old Westerly or Sigma. I was knocked down to 50 or 60 degrees in a line squall half way across Lyme bay, nothing failed and the autohelm held its course controlling my modern deep efficient spade rudder.

In similar conditions a typical undersized MAB rudder with typical hideous hydrodynamic properties, would have stalled, the boat would have broached right into the wind and a sail or two would have shredded.

Had I been rolled over to 60 degree in a typical aging MAB my thoughts would have been:

1 - How much hull laminate was lost during the the last osmosis peel, will the keel break off?

2 - After 30 years of mast flexing are the spreader sockets about to give way and bring the mast down in the 40kts conditions?

3 - After 30 years of use are the engine mounts about the give way and let the engine free to try and destroy the hull?

4 - If the engine breaks loose will the prop shaft tear loose and let the sea flood in?

5 - If the engine stays on its mounts is corrosion in the exhaust cool circuit about the flood my boat?

The truth is MAB owners don't get out much and do much sailing, they fail to see that the majority of offshore mileage is clocked up by modern fin keel/spade rudder yachts. MAB owners are typically retired and physically not up to arduous offshore sailing which leaves them with too much free time to pollute internet forums with their cantankerous delusions.

In the past 3 years I have clocked 12 overnight solo offshore passages, singlehanded from the Solent, around the fastnet and back, and delivered my Bavaria to SW Brittany and back solo.

I actually know what I am talking about, unlike the average MAB owner restricted to a life of virtual keyboard sailing or boatyard DIY projects.

Ex. Jonjo.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Wouldn;t it have been better if they'd built them strong rather than shiny?

Where have you any evidence they are not strong? Strength comes from design and materials appropriate to the loads. Mine is 9 years old and nothing has broken or fallen off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRIrh2hK5U

Would you have confidence in the build of a boat that was as scruffy and as poorly finished as the one in the photos?

I certainly wouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that just because something is nice and shiny it has been well made or, particularly, well designed. In some cases it might even make me suspicious: have the designers chosen to go for shiny at the expense of strength, I would ask myself.

BTW I seem to remember you contributing to a recent thread on the need to rebuild the inside of certain Westerlys including your own to stop the keels falling off. Are these what you call strong, well built boats?

In the case of my own strong and well built with a design flaw which I have now rectified. I cheerful admit it - no desperate denial here. Incidentally, my bilges aren't nearly as pretty as the were went Westerly built 'em. Know how much that worries me? Not a bit, that's how much.

 

[Ubergeekian]

No way would either of those cause the front of the keel base to break off unless the keel was faulty.

You might be surprised at how easy it can be to snap a relatively thin piece of cast iron.

 

[Ubergeekian]

I'm afraid you're wrong about better design and build quality on modern boats. Design is ruled by a brief that'll say something like "we want two double cabins, 7 berths over all, two heads and a saloon with space for 10." Then a boat will be designed around it. The build quality of the boats is governed by how little they can possibly put into the construction and get away with it.

Absolutely. Mass construction down to a price is fine for light and short term use. I'm willing to bet, thoigh, that in thirty years time the proportion of current Bavarias et al afloat will be far lower than the proportion of 70s Centaurs which have made it to today.

Of course people who have spent large amounts of money on these things may not wish to hear this but hey, there's a reason why they got 10 or 20 feet of boat more than they would have for the same money twenty years ago.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Having sailed my Bavaria through 40kts offshore I would be more worried handling the same conditions in a typical 30 year old Westerly or Sigma. .

Come back in thirty years and tell us if you still have so much confidence in your Bavaria. You are expecting it to last thirty years, aren't you?

 

[Cerddinen]

I believe it is now time for a new forum: The Bavaria Keel Problem Denial Forum. This would provide a space for all the posters who wish to write eulogies about the quality and sea-worthiness of their Bavarias. It would also ensure that interesting and informative threads such as this one do not descend into mindless acrimony. Like many people I follow this forum to learn from the accumulated wisdom of posters. It is a shame when this is buried under my-boat-is-better-than-your-boat nonsense. Any informed sailor knows the pros and cons of the various designs and can live without the "My boat is perfect cos I sailed in 40 knots single handed with spinnaker and blooper and only broached once" stuff.

 

[BristolDiver]

Bavaria bashers - take it outside, guys...

Thanks for the constructive feedback, but lets not descend into a my boat is better than your boat argument. Incidentally I had considered Bavs but had discounted any of the post 2000 models - just too light for my taste. I'm a believer in the heavier "over engineered" designs, rather than the calculated "just strong enough" cost conscious designs of today. Of course, neither are necessarily unsafe provided the calculations and model were entirely accurate, and the same goes for the wet finger of traditional design ethos.

 

[Clyde_Wanderer]

Bristol Diver glad you have some opinion which helps you to move on.

Clyde Wanderer your observation on possible loads would not be considered correct in a static analysis (assuming the boat hit a stationary object). The keel hits the obstruction and stops (it doesn't matter if it continues to move as its the rate of de-acceleration that loads the front edge with a force). This is the key point. The keel is now fixed in space for a load transfer analysis. The momentum of the boat is transferred into a shear and compression load on the front of the keel and maybe across the whole keel.

Why compression and not just shear load across the keel bolts? Initially the boat will try and continue to move forward. This produces pure shear in line with the direction of motion (keel bolts shear load failure possibility). However two additional things now happen. The boat effectively takes a nose dive over the stationary keel because there is limited resistance by the water and gravity bears down as the hull is likely to be lifted out the water some what. Both these dynamic conditions produce downward force on the keel i.e. compression as the boat is forced into the fixed keel.

A forward collision low down on the keel nearly always produces a compression load on the hull / keel interface which is why the stringers crack.

For your position to happen the boat has to be fixed in space and the obstruction strikes the keel. This case can occur if the keel can move after the load is applied i.e. striking a cill at speed with the bow up and stern squat. The boat bumps over the cill before the forward momentum is transferred into a compressive load and the shear loading is not at right angles to the keel bolts or hitting a lee shore on a swell / surf where the back of the keel strikes first.

To be fair, what I describe is idealised and the attitude, speed and rate of de-acceleration of the boat to the various axis will determine how the loads are applied. So its not straight forward. None of this helps the OP and is pure navel gazing analysis.

I understand what you are saying, but have you considered the length of the keel and how far down towards its forefoot the impact could have happened creating a leverage effedt and the top center area of the keel being the fulcrum point. the force applied to that fulcrum point would be a product of the load applied to the extreem end of the lever which I would have thought to be a radial force/loading which would occur between the collision happening and the full force of the loading actually transferring to the whole mass of the hull, and the fact that this fulcrum point would obsorbe a large portian of that loading.
The marks on the forefoot of the keel would slightly suggest that the impact was not directly on the front but slightly to one side of the front which would to some extent have caused a degree of axial loading, which could explain why the smaller broken off peice of the keel is sitting at a sideways angle with one (port) side further up into the flange recess.
the crack I mentioned before is just above the gas sensor where the blue/grey sole joins with the cross brace, just above the top right sensor retaining screw and running vertically on the cross brace.
C_W

 

[Tranona]

To Orbister and Woodlouse.

You fall into the trap of thinking that everything old is good and everything new is no good.

To deal with the latter, as others have pointed out there are thousands of "modern" boats sailing all over the world without giving problems. Choosing single extreme examples from which to generalise is like saying don't buy a Fiesta - think of the problems Ford had with an XYZ model.

As to the old boats, you have to remember that they were built in the early days of of "modern" design and materials - way before any serious analysis was carried out on materials, design and production methods. This is not a criticism of the people involved, just that they did not know what we know now. I was involved in boat building in the late 70's early 80's and I wince at the things we used to do then.

These fora have a regular stream of old boat problems which are mostly predictable, reflecting the way they were designed and built. You could argue that in 30 years time similar problems may occur in what are now current boats. However, I don't think so as hopefully designers and builders have learned from past experience and design and build better boats. You also have to remember that the big builders often make more of one model in a year than some of the old classes like Sigma made in their complete existence and have customers such as the big charter companies that buy and operate them in volume, providing good feedback to improve the product.

If you do want to use individual examples from which to generalise, you are quite welcome to look over my 2001 Bavaria which has had more use than many private boats get in a lifetime, 7 years as a charter boat with over 20 weeks a year. I have owned it from new so know pretty much all its history and can say honestly there is nothing wrong with it.

Since we stopped chartering it, I have been looking at possibly buying a "proper" boat of the type being talked about here of roughly the same value and have been horrified at how poor they are - not just in terms of being poorly presented but fundamental issues like osmosis, poor hull keel joints, chain plates, mild steel fuel tanks, engines that can't be removed without taking the boat apart, leaks, decaying soft furnishings, poor electrics and so on - just the kinds of issues that come up regularly on the fora.

I think part of the attraction of MABs is because they were so desirable when they were new - When I first started cruising in the late 70's I was in awe of boats like the latest Moodys and Westerlys, with never a prospect of being able to afford one. Now I can afford one, but things move on and one realises there are many better products available now. Its a bit like going back to a Cortina Mk5 compared to my C Max. Just in a different league.

There is a place for old boats in the market place as the market prices show because they offer potential for people to have the kind of boat they want at an affordable price and if well looked after will last well. The style of many older boats is often not available new because either that is not what new boat buyers want or is too expensive to build, so if you like that style you have to buy used. However in doing so you have to accept the downsides that go with buying an older boat. But it is clear that many people like me are not prepared to accept those negatives and prefer to buy a newer boat.

You never know, if you tried it like I have you might find you actually like it!

 

[exfinnsailor]

Another Point

First thing i thought when looking at the pics was its been dropped .. You need considerable force to ripple cast iron like that so its not suprising something else cracked ..

If you do buy .. .. Just think how you will explain away the damage to the next guy / guyess who asks ..

You could of course just replace the whole keel .. Then know one would ever know .. Or .. You spend alot of time taking it all apart and getting it repaired if possible .. Do you really want all the hassel ..

 

[csharpatsea]

In the case of my own strong and well built with a design flaw which I have now rectified.

Only a Westerly owner could fail to see the joke in that statement.

 

[csharpatsea]

This is the key point. The keel is now fixed in space for a load transfer analysis. The momentum of the boat is transferred into a shear and compression load on the front of the keel and maybe across the whole keel.

This is utter nonsense and I had to clip the rest.

Most YBW drivel is easy to spot but your post is dangerous because it is wrapped up in pseudo science.

What happens when a keel grounds at speed is that the mass of the hull and keel above the point of contact continues to move forward. This produces a rotational force on the keel and so the leading section of the keel tries to pull away from the hull and the rear of the keel pushes upwards.

In a less extreme case this will result in gel coat stress crazing of the grp hull, with radial lines at the leading edge of the keel and concentric lines aft confirming the fore/aft tug/push forces.

 

[Ubergeekian]

You fall into the trap of thinking that everything old is good and everything new is no good.

Not at all. You compared a new Bavaria with a 30 year old Westerly and pointed out that some things are - quite unsurprisingly - better on the new boat. A comparison of a brand new Centaur with a 30 year old "modern" Bavaria (if you see what I mean) might throw some quite different results.

The problem is that "old " and "new" have two different meanings here, so we're talking a bit at cross purposes. "New" can mean "modern design" or "just made" with equivalents for old. So of course you are quite right to say that a 30 year old engine installation is likely to have more problems, and be less reliable, than a two year old one, or your eight year old one. But that's just because the thirty year old one is thirty years old, and not because it's intrinsically worse.

There has clearly been a significant design shift in yachts over the last twenty years or so. They have become bigger for the same weight, or lighter for the same length, and in either case they go faster for your money. That's great. However, the potential downside is inevitably in longevity. As another poster has said, engineering margins are being cut much finer these days. That's probably fine when the boats are new (-ly made!) but as they get older and materials begin to lose their strength the calculated margins may get too tight for comfort. To take the example of the Bavaria keel fitting shown in the Hungarain report posted above, those small backing plates and penny washers on a total of eight bolts may well be fine the day the boat leaves the factory ... but how will they cope after thirty years of flexing and pounding.

So, do I think old good, new bad? Not at all. There are some lovely new boats and there were some horrors thirty years ago. The Jouster fin keel attachment is a disgrace. For people who want high performance at the cost of a relatively low service life (we all know the care that needs taken if thinking of buying an ex-racing boat) then modern boats are indubitably better. For those that want something solid and durable for cruising, something older and more massive is probably a better choice, at least until we know how the modern lightweight stuff ages.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Only a Westerly owner could fail to see the joke in that statement.

It's important to distinguish between design flaws and construction flaws. Westerly put lots of good stuff there ... just not always in the right place!

 

[csharpatsea]

Come back in thirty years and tell us if you still have so much confidence in your Bavaria. You are expecting it to last thirty years, aren't you?

I don't expect any yacht to last 30 years without substantial reinvestment and replacement of major components. I am a realist who would be quite happy to sell my Bav at 25 years for 20% of its original value (inflation adjusted) to a less ambitious coastal sailor.

What keeps the RNLI in business are those elements of the offshore MAB navy, who seem unaware of the dangers of cumulative wear and fatigue in their yachts.

 

[VictorII]

Could we cut the male bovine excrement already? It's not and never has been an old vs new debate, or even mass produced vs hand made. It's quality vs cost cutting gone awry. Many yacht builders are in the first category, mostly with modern boats. Bavaria has been proven to be in the last category often enough. Bavaria owners like to generalize any debate to include all 'new boat' builders.

At least modern race boat builders are honest about the fact that their boats are built to a purpose: going fast while the crew make sure they don't fall apart. It's time Bavaria admitted they are mainly a floating caravan builder. Most Bavaria owners are, therefore, floating caravan owners. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. When I charter in the Med, a Bavaria it is! But don't expect me to cross an ocean in one. Even if someone else might take the chance.

 

[csharpatsea]

To take the example of the Bavaria keel fitting shown in the Hungarain report posted above, those small backing plates and penny washers on a total of eight bolts may well be fine the day the boat leaves the factory ... but how will they cope after thirty years of flexing and pounding.

The backing plates are larger than anything you would find on a Westerly or Moody and for good reason. Re. the "penny washers", they are about 6mm thick and of similar dimension to the square washers show in a photo in this thread.

One piece of info that came my way re. the Hungarian event, those keels were not factory fitted due to height problems shipping the fleet through some Alpine tunnel. The random number of backing plates used in the same fleet indicates the shore-side keel fitting was contracted out to some low grade local outfit.

 

[csharpatsea]

It's time Bavaria admitted they are mainly a floating caravan builder.

If you look at the vital design statistics across the range of Ben/Jan/Bavs made in the last 10 years, it is difficult to tell em apart. About 10 years ago Benneteau went through a bad phase with cruising designs suffering from excessively wide aft sections.

Anyhow since Ben/Jan/Bavs must account for over 50% of Euro yacht construction you have just insulted a lot of yachtsmen with your caravan allegation.

 

[VictorII]

Oh my, have I insulted anyone? I just look at who leaves our harbour every weekend as we do. Very few boats in general, and almost no Bavarias. Unless it's force 2-3 and sunny, then we see some out there. When we were out in a F6, F7 and F8 this summer - and there were plenty of opportunities - I never saw a Bavaria out. Not many others either, but still some Etaps, Jeanneaus, Dufour et al., which are pretty AWB in my book.

edit: I did once see a Bavaria 37 Cruiser leave harbour in a WSW F6 - they turned back before they got beyond the pier head. As anyone who has visited Ostend can assert, this is a pretty tough place to leave in those conditions, but we like to 'enjoy' ourselves every now and then.

I have never said anything disrespectful about Jeanneau, Beneteau as I don't think they aren't quality boats.

Why do Bavaria owners always try to blend into the Ben/Jen/Bav category? There are pretty big differences between the brands in terms of build quality, even though it's likely the French will have made some mistakes from time to time.

Can we end this discussion now or shall I advise a good self-help group for caravan owners? Personally I'd love to own a caravan, an SUV and a big satellite dish, but I'm stuck with my MAB, my bike (a German one, so I can't be accused of bashing the Germans) and my tent when I want to go out mountaneering.

 

[Tranona]

Could we cut the male bovine excrement already? It's not and never has been an old vs new debate, or even mass produced vs hand made. It's quality vs cost cutting gone awry. Many yacht builders are in the first category, mostly with modern boats. Bavaria has been proven to be in the last category often enough. Bavaria owners like to generalize any debate to include all 'new boat' builders.

QUOTE]

What a sweeping generalisation from somebody who does not seem to like generaslisations!

Suggest you ask owners of many "hand built quality boats" about their experiences. It seems to me the only people who make claims about lack of quality or fitness for purpose of boats from the major builders (including Bavaria) are people who don't own them, but seem to like to think that they know what they are talking about. However, the many thousands of owners who have parted with their hard earned cash know otherwise - but only get accused of trying to justify themselves when they report their satisfaction with their purchase. Are we all ignorant or blind or stupid and only need people like you to point out the error of our ways.