New design Bavaria 32 - an above average AWB?

awol said:
I can't see what the rate of build has to do with anything. That people still commission the build of a 40 year old design is a fact and do so in preference to buying a Bavaria, just as considerably more will buy a new Bavaria - but then it is also a fact that the majority are plebs.
Click to expand...

Your arrogance is amazing.

No one is doubting that in its day the contessa was a good design but tastes change. The fact that the majority of new yacht purchasers will buy a production AWB and not your beloved contessa results in you implying that their tastes are lacking and they are plebs. You really are a class act!!
 
It took me a while top 'learn' the modus operandi of the forums..
One can possibly pass marginal comment on a bloke, his missus, his choice of car, mooring, holiday destination but never, ever, his choice of boat.
tha's handbags at dawn on the Bramble bank at low tide tha's is..

I have a very nice (to me) MAB, I have owned 4 very different boats, including one US made AWB and three very different sailing dinghies..
Some of the features creeping into the new FABs ( Futuristic Anarchic Boats) intrigue me mightily coupled with highly understood and technically competent modern production...Who knows whats next:):):):)

Meanwhile, amidst the misunderstandinds in these boat vs boat posts one always learns something new. So thats good innit
 
Sailfree said:
Your arrogance is amazing.

No one is doubting that in its day the contessa was a good design but tastes change. The fact that the majority of new yacht purchasers will buy a production AWB and not your beloved contessa results in you implying that their tastes are lacking and they are plebs. You really are a class act!!
Click to expand...
Au contraire, you infer that the fact of the majority of the population being plebian is somehow linked to the purchasers of Bav 32s. I have no idea how many patricians buy AWBs and I think we have abolished slavery.
Again my boat preference has nothing to do with the apparent lack of improvement of the "new" Bav 32 cf the "old"
 
Bav34 said:
http://www.co32.org/

I suppose that about 1000 IS over 700 ... :cool:
Click to expand...

Well according to the 2012/13 Class Yearbook the hull/sail numbers have reached 940 but they may not have started at 001. Then there are the Canadian built ones plus the ones built when the moulds were in hands other than Jeremy Rogers. I reckon closer to 1k than 700. Does it matter?
 
awol said:
Well, first of all there is the vicarious pleasure of winding up the AWB apologists. What I thought I was trying to compare was the "new" Bav 32 and the "old" Bav32, the one that YM put side by side with a CO32. Mischievous perhaps but the "new" version does not appear to have any improvements over the "old" even in simple features like instrument space and fiddles - perhaps improvement over perfection is impossible in your mind.
As for the CO32, I am well aware of its drawbacks but having experienced some AWBs, but not, I admit, the latest Bav 32, I am more than happy to suffer them.
Click to expand...

So perhaps the vicarious pleasure of winding up owners of old obsolete boats is equally acceptable. Why do you persist in trying to place your boat on some kind of different plane? As to your last paragraph, if you are happy with your boat and you don't like AWBs, why do you get so exercised about them? Nobody is forcing you to buy one, and this thread was nothing to do with comparing them with old designs, which I think we all agree is a pointless exercise.

If you were to compare it with a modern equivalent such as an X Yacht then there is little doubt which is the more desirable boat. In exactly the same way that if one compared a modern Bavaria, Beneteau etc with a Westerly Berwick or a Macwester Wight there is little doubt which one would choose. People choose to buy a new X Yacht and not a new Contessa 32, in just the same way as people would choose a new AWB over a new Westerly etc.

An AWB 32 footer serves a completely different market at a completely different price from a Contessa 32. People who are satisfied with one will not be satisfied with the other. That's just how it is.
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
So perhaps the vicarious pleasure of winding up owners of old obsolete boats is equally acceptable. Why do you persist in trying to place your boat on some kind of different plane? As to your last paragraph, if you are happy with your boat and you don't like AWBs, why do you get so exercised about them? Nobody is forcing you to buy one, and this thread was nothing to do with comparing them with old designs, which I think we all agree is a pointless exercise.
Click to expand...

Again, and in simple words, I have not tried to compare your beloved AWBs with anything other than AWBs. There is apparently a "new" version of the Bav32 and all I have inquired is what are the improvements over the "old" version - the one that just happened to be compared side-by-side to a CO32 by Yachting Monthly - an article that sticks in my mind because of the (to me) rather amusing conclusion. As far as I can see the changes to the "new" Bav32 are minor cosmetics plus a "new" mainsheet position and an anchor permanently on the bow roller. A possible advantage of attaching the mainsheet to the centre-line has been identified by Georgio but it necessarily precludes any control over mainsail twist should the Bav32 owner wish to do so - it is also presumably cheaper than providing a car and track.
The OP thought the boat show exhibit was "fully loaded with stuff" and has been pointed to 2 articles in Sailing Today and Yachting Monthly which reviewed Bav32s, neither particularly favourably.
You really need to get the chip off your shoulder about MABs. Perhaps you have repressed desires for damp diesel smells, cramped bunks, lack of headroom, open plan heads and all the rest?
And finally, does wearing a privileged ensign denote a Patrician?
 
Georgio said:
Actually, I have been thinking about this AWOL. Given that most Bav owners probably put a greater deal of importance on comfort, safety and cost than sailing performance the lack of a traveller could be seen as a positive step for them. Less cost, no traveller to trap fingers, one less thing to think about for novice sailors, for many this is going to seem as an improvement.

Not my cup of tea though, not enough stuff to tweak.
Click to expand...

I have a identical arrangment on my 1999 31... As I said earlier I had considered changing it when I firt got the boat...

But actually its quite good in many ways..

As the sheet come off the top of the binnacle it's very easy to manage single handed... When we are hard on the wind and well heeled it's easier to reach for someone sitting outboard... A it's such a short lead from there to the boom I can get the boom almost dead on the center line even without a track...

I have never had a issue with twist when using the kicker judiciously...

As for things to tweak... Well I can do the main sheet easily, the kicker, the outhaul, the backstay, the cars....

I think a traveller in the cockpit is a nice thing... But for a small short handed cruising boat, the arrangment on mine is vastly superior IMHO to a bridge deck mounted traveller... (which really is the work of Satan.. IMHO.)
 
awol said:
Well according to the 2012/13 Class Yearbook the hull/sail numbers have reached 940 but they may not have started at 001. Then there are the Canadian built ones plus the ones built when the moulds were in hands other than Jeremy Rogers. I reckon closer to 1k than 700. Does it matter?
Click to expand...

You're both right. The number is within a few of 850 (apparently) including the ones built in Canada. So half way between 700 and 1000. But it doesn't matter.

You can't consider the longevity of the Conteassa 32 without considering the reports on the aftermath of the '79 Fasnet race. If the Con32 hadn't been used as the epitome of a 'seaworthy' design (in contrast to the OOD34, which was the basis of another Contessa design), it probably would have ceased production after 400 boats in the late 70's, and slipped into reletive obscurity along with many of its similar contemporaries. Although the post disaster report painted a very bi-polar, black and white picture of what constituted 'seaworthy', a more thorough approach in the STIX calculation sees the Contessa 32 only just squeak a ocean going CAT A, with a number of 33.

If you want to look at commercially successful 30-odd footers, then the Catalina 30 is a good example. It was a really fresh and original design only a couple of years after the Contessa 32, (which in effect was a copy of every S&S design from the previous decade), but as it combined conservative looks with adequate sailing ability and a huge interior went on to really appeal to the market and sell 6500 boats and stayed in production longer than any other boat. And did so profitably; a knack which has eluded all British builders who traditionally have never grasped the idea that boats have to be sold for more than it costs to build them.

Bavaria probably looks to Catalina for inspiration (high volume and profitable) than to any UK niche product. And why not, it's what the buying public want.
 
Last edited:
Jabahutt said:
Thanks for an interesting thread folks. Next time I pass a CO32 I'll tug my forelock and hope his Lordship won't set his hounds on me...
Click to expand...


You won't be passing anyone unless you buy yourself a boat and I suspect this thread has not been much help.

What factors really matter in a family cruiser of this size?

Does anyone own a Hanse, Beneteau, or Jeaneau that has significant, not just hot air, advantages over the new Bavaria 32?
 
Last edited:
Glad you have brought it back to the purpose of the original thread.

Having just been through the process of considering a boat in this category and looking at the 4 main contenders, it is a bit like choosing a Focus/Golf/Megane etc. They are "commodity" boats. Their big market is charter companies - there are hundreds of this type of boat in Greece, Croatia, Turkey etc doing sterling service in that role. The designs are honed to meet the needs of such customers so they major on accommodation, ease of handling and simplicity. Meeting this market's requirements inevitably means that they may not be ideal for our market, but equally many people have found them entirely satisfactory.

If you draw up your comparison spreadsheet you find an awful lot of commonalities and every boat has a small number of features that are better/worse than the others. So the decision is not clearcut and depends very much on how you feel about the deal. In my case I thought the Bavaria was on balance the best, no doubt influenced by my experience with my current Bavaria, but I would be happy with an equivalent Benny or Jenny, and even a Hanse if it had a usable aft cabin. What would have swung it though is the "package" that was on offer at the show, although not everything in it would have been my choice, plus a generous part exchange deal that would have meant the boat ended up substantially cheaper than a similarly equipped competitor.

That is how decisions are made by people who actually have the money to spend (and in my case money is not a constraint at this level). It is looking at what is on offer, weighing up the value and deciding.

So somebody with only £25k to spend does not have the options available to me. What that person chooses to spend their money on is of no interest to me and certainly does not affect my own decisions. I assume they are happy that they have got what they want.
 
nigelmercier said:
The lighter interior is a big plus point for me. The fairly dark interior of my Bavaria 47 (2000) is the only thing I dislike about her.
Click to expand...

My wife agrees with you, but I prefer the darker wood of our 2003 Bavaria 38, but it would be boring if we all agreed. But we both prefer the lockers we have throughout the saloon and forward cabin in our boat. Open plan looks nice but not so practicable, especially when living aboard for longer periods. Still a very nice boat.
 
Had poke around a brand new Bav Vision 46 yesterday and I was very impressed.

Quite honestly, my first impression was that it's one of the nicest yachts I have had the pleasure of being in. Full of great ideas, loads of space, really good quality interior furnishings and woodwork. Fantastic boat.
 
What about the ballast ratio?

Having just read through this entire thread, I am going to make a plea for constructive comments only.

I am also interested in the Bavaria 32/33 (new Farr design) and am wondering about the balast (or lack of balast) ratio at 25%. Does this seriously compromise ability to carry sail to windward, or do the modern designers and cad programs know exactly what they are doing?

I have to say I was surprised to read that there is little difference in the AVS of a modern Bavaria 32/33 when compared to a HR 342, which I believe carries approx 750 kg more in it's keel. I guess the HR will carry more sail in a broader range of wind which will equate to faster times on passage.

Any thoughts?
 
The only person who can answer this question I'm afraid is you.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a Bavaria 32/33, the question really is what kind of sailing will you be doing and where? And BE HONEST with yourself !!! :D

My advice would be to charter one off-season for a week and see what you think, untilmately you need to be able to live with it and the cost of a charter may save you buying the wrong boat.

I love my Bav 36 so I'm a bit biased, I explained why here ....

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333337
 
keirah said:
Having just read through this entire thread, I am going to make a plea for constructive comments only.

I am also interested in the Bavaria 32/33 (new Farr design) and am wondering about the balast (or lack of balast) ratio at 25%. Does this seriously compromise ability to carry sail to windward, or do the modern designers and cad programs know exactly what they are doing?

I have to say I was surprised to read that there is little difference in the AVS of a modern Bavaria 32/33 when compared to a HR 342, which I believe carries approx 750 kg more in it's keel. I guess the HR will carry more sail in a broader range of wind which will equate to faster times on passage.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Well... I think the hr is a different kettle of fish... I expect she will not only carry more weight low... But have lower freeboard and probably be less beamy as well... Which should equate to as you point out a better ability to carry sail in more wind....

Which may equate to being a bit slower however in modest winds...

The key with the Bavaria I would suggest for best preformance is to get the deep keel.... But don't expect her to sail as comfortably in more robust conditions as a hr....

Ours has a avs of circa 140'... Draws two meters... And ballast ratio of around 30percent... But her circa 3 meter beam on 9.5 length is quite narrow and she is tender... And needs early reefing to keep her comfortable...

But she is good in moderate winds... And is easily driven and fun... And doesn't slam unless being driven insensitively...

As for how the Bavaria nets as good a avs... She will carry more Freeboard and this will improve the figure .. Though the shape of the curve is also very important...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top