Moody 376 vs bavaria 37

[Sailfree]

I don't know which AWBs you're thinking of, but some are doing rather the opposite. The current generation of Farr-designed Bavaria Cruisers are considerably heavier than the boats they replace, and take more labour to assemble. In a few years' time, they'll be more sought-after than the previous generation boats.

I was thinking of the trend that most AWB builders now use the more cost efficient "egg box " shape inner hull rather than ribs and beams and a thicker outer hulls. I prefer the structural elements to be visible rather than the Beneteau type build (egg box) where you need to drill holes to confirm an outer hull tapping test to see if the inner and outer hull has become debonded.

 

[silver-fox]

Would not say necessarily better built, but certainly different philosophy. If you compare my old 37 with yours, the major change (apart from a 10% or so increase in D/LWL) is that mine was intended to be "flexible" in that the bulkheads are not so structural being only glassed to the hull, not the deck. The fore an aft berth fronts, shelves etc are also not structural. So the boat moves a lot. The door frames float in the bulkheads and also move underway. The hull "works" in a seaway - you can see the gaps either side of the drop down transom seat opening and closing! Despite all this everything has held together - but it is not a sharp boat to sail, and tolerant of lousy helms like me.

I understand the brief to Farr was to produce a stiffer hull and deck structure as a basis for improving sailing performance, and from what i have seen they seem to have achieved that.

This is the first time I have heard of a sailing hull being designed to be flexible and I am curious to know the reason for this approach. I would also like to understand how you can tension the rigging if it is attached to such a flexible hull?

 

[Tranona]

This is the first time I have heard of a sailing hull being designed to be flexible and I am curious to know the reason for this approach. I would also like to understand how you can tension the rigging if it is attached to such a flexible hull?

It is the bulkheads that are not bonded to the coachroof. It was a common method of construction in the period - and often criticised, but thousands of boats were built like it. The rigging loads go through tierods to a ring frame and a compression post to the keel. No loads taken by either the deck/coachroof or the transom as it is fractionally rigged. The backstay is only there to bend the mast, not hold it up. Again very common arrangement on fractionally rigged boats.

I was only making the observation to contrast it with the newer models which have abandoned this method of construction in favour of making more structural use of the furniture and reports suggest that the boat feels stiffer and is less prone to the squeaks and groans common with older boats.

 

[KellysEye]

If you are day sailing in light to moderate winds I'd go with the Bav. If you think you might meet strong winds I'd prefer to be in the Moody it's more strongly built.