Tranona
Well-known member
About one third of the price. An HR 42 basic would be £700k, a Najad 395 well equipped £600k. New style Bavaria 45, fully loaded (in a Med sunbathing way) £380k
Old world cruiser or newer ship
- Thread starter PHN
- Start date
About one third of the price. An HR 42 basic would be £700k, a Najad 395 well equipped £600k. New style Bavaria 45, fully loaded (in a Med sunbathing way) £380k
dom
Well-known member
Don't know the answer to that one; to be truthful the only HR I ever go on is whatever tips up to the Southampton Boat Show!
Then again from that extremely limited knowledge base (entirely happy to be heavily corrected here!) the HRs I have experienced in that limited context ....now how can I say this ...the hull and appendages ....and erm, well its arse if I'm honest ...and possibly even the rig ...okay they're going a bit AWBy
Better get my coat now and peg it :ambivalence:
flaming
Well-known member
Don't know the answer to that one; to be truthful the only HR I ever go on is whatever tips up to the Southampton Boat Show!
Then again from that extremely limited knowledge base (entirely happy to be heavily corrected here!) the HRs I have experienced in that limited context ....now how can I say this ...the hull and appendages ....and erm, well its arse if I'm honest ...and possibly even the rig ...okay they're going a bit AWBy
Better get my coat now and peg it :ambivalence:
Ok, so follow up question then....
What is the dream boat available to buy now for those who favour a more traditional hull shape and displacement? And how much does it cost?
dom
Well-known member
I'd have thought something like a Contest, Disco, HR, etc. would be high on the list. I personally wouldn't touch new Oysters with a 40' barge pole and ditto CNBs given some well-known problems. For many the 'dream' boat will be the max manageable by two people without the vast use of hydraulics and their associated complexity and pain in the arsery. In-boom furling opens some good options here. I'd guess that equates to a length of 55-62' ish for a boat that will carry sufficient equipment and feel fully at home, helped along by a little customisation to taste. Cost, hard to say, but £1.25-£1.7m wouldn't be too far out. Additionally, the recent fall in sterling is not at all good for GBP buyers and as things stand a 5-15% increase in that range would probably be necessary. Much over 60' you'd want to treat that upper boundary as soft. However, going bigger seems to get troublesome for some reason; there are so many skeleton crewed 65-90ers floating around the Caribbean. Not sure why.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
Then again from that extremely limited knowledge base (entirely happy to be heavily corrected here!) the HRs I have experienced in that limited context ....now how can I say this ...the hull and appendages ....and erm, well its arse if I'm honest ...and possibly even the rig ...okay they're going a bit AWBy
The current HRs are built to a very similar standard to many new AWBs. If you look at hull weight, it's about the same as similar-sized AWBs. Most of the equipment is the same quality, and from the same manufacturers - Selden, Volvo Penta, Jefa, Lewmar, Harken, Jabsco, Isotherm, etc. Of course, the HRs have nicer, better finished, more comfortable interiors, plus decent teak on the deck. Plus they have an intangible feel of exclusivity which helps justify the pricing. I owned an HR352 for 19 years, and knew it inside out; the new Bavaria I bought 4 years ago to replace it is, in many ways, a better-built boat. (But it's a Bavaria....)
Kelpie
Well-known member
As was said up thread, much of the disagreement stems from a lack of consensus about what bluewater or liveaboard cruising actually means. Some people live on their boat, cruising out of the way places, all year round; others go on extended cruises but return home for several months of the year. Some people are totally self sufficient, others make use of marinas, boat yards, and possibly delivery services. Some people simply use their boat as a floating house and never actually sail anywhere.
One factor that I think is missing from the discussion is 'maintainability'. A good expression of a maintainable boat is a Wylo, able to take the ground and even lower and raise its own rig, without the need for any external assistance. At the other extreme is a racy AWB which must be hoisted ashore to scrub the bottom, and won't take kindly to bumping off the odd rock.
If you fully intend to use marinas and boatyards, and are reasonably confident that you won't hit any rocks, then a modern boat looks like it holds the upper hand. But a minority of people will always prefer boats that are inherently tough and simple. It's like choosing between a tractor and a gadget packed modern car- you need the right tool for the job.
One factor that I think is missing from the discussion is 'maintainability'. A good expression of a maintainable boat is a Wylo, able to take the ground and even lower and raise its own rig, without the need for any external assistance. At the other extreme is a racy AWB which must be hoisted ashore to scrub the bottom, and won't take kindly to bumping off the odd rock.
If you fully intend to use marinas and boatyards, and are reasonably confident that you won't hit any rocks, then a modern boat looks like it holds the upper hand. But a minority of people will always prefer boats that are inherently tough and simple. It's like choosing between a tractor and a gadget packed modern car- you need the right tool for the job.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Adverse comments were made by Geem about wide sterns and lighter keels.
I feel that on these boats the stability arises from hull form rather than weight of the keel & i see nothing wrong with this provided righting moment is not overly compromised.........................................
My own experience of narrow sterns as opposed to wider sterns is that a wider stern is far better down wind & has far less rolling motion. Some of the older narrow deep keeled boats relying on keel weight for stability have to heel a long way before the stability curve really kicks in. This means that the initial rolling (in theory) is far greater. Wider sterns (in theory) should be more comfortable down wind...................................
Have I got that right?...............................
I ask because I suspect that any long distance cruiser would sensibly use the winds to blow them along rather than try to punch up into the wind, if they can avoid it.That is why we have passage planning charts & things, like the ARC, take place at christmas......................................
Obviously things change a bit in really heavy weather but all crafts can be slowed down with the use of drouges etc.......................................
So is a wider stern better - comfort wise- down wind
As for the spreader argument then a modern boat with a big main would - one would expect round up a bit rather than head straight down wind. It is well known that many cruisers drop the main & run under sails forward of the mast so the spreader debate would not apply in that situation
I feel that on these boats the stability arises from hull form rather than weight of the keel & i see nothing wrong with this provided righting moment is not overly compromised.........................................
My own experience of narrow sterns as opposed to wider sterns is that a wider stern is far better down wind & has far less rolling motion. Some of the older narrow deep keeled boats relying on keel weight for stability have to heel a long way before the stability curve really kicks in. This means that the initial rolling (in theory) is far greater. Wider sterns (in theory) should be more comfortable down wind...................................
Have I got that right?...............................
I ask because I suspect that any long distance cruiser would sensibly use the winds to blow them along rather than try to punch up into the wind, if they can avoid it.That is why we have passage planning charts & things, like the ARC, take place at christmas......................................
Obviously things change a bit in really heavy weather but all crafts can be slowed down with the use of drouges etc.......................................
So is a wider stern better - comfort wise- down wind
As for the spreader argument then a modern boat with a big main would - one would expect round up a bit rather than head straight down wind. It is well known that many cruisers drop the main & run under sails forward of the mast so the spreader debate would not apply in that situation
shaunksb
Well-known member
Big seas usually don't show as big on pictures as your real life experience and when they become really big you don't have time for pictures
But below a few pics from movies that I made:
Ireland - the guy on the left was not able to stand up due to the waves:
More Ireland:
And the Southern Ocean on a tall ship to show if my next trip gets extended a little further:
You’ll be fine in any of that in a 11m AWB.
Don’t worry...
_______________________
PHN
Member
Well ... there are two design issues to look after:
1. weak (cheap) rigging in windy situations can bring your mast down when the sail has too much pressure for that particular rigging. I have seen several modern AWB's with rigging that looked weak like straw which made me wonder how much it can endure. Or ... heavy rigging on weak connections.
2. The weight of the boat will make it more or less slamming on waves. Not only uncormfortable, but over ground you are going nowhere as the boat only goes up, builds up speed and then slams down bringing it to a halt.
shaunksb
Well-known member
You can upgrade your rigging if you really want to (mine is) but don’t underestimate the design strength and you will be reefed.
A few weeks ago I was offshore in Northern Norway in a F7 sailing a Discovery 55 at around 25 tons and she slammed on the wind.
A few years ago I was in a circa 45 ton Challanger 72 crossing the North Atlantic in a Spring F9. She slammed too.
How heavy were you thinking of going?
_____________________
Last edited:
flaming
Well-known member
1.) It's a misconception that the strength of the rigging is dependant on the intended wind strength. It is more dictated by the weight of the boat and the max righting moment. A light boat will not require rigging as strong as a heavy boat.
2.) Whilst a factor, weight is not the only or key factor in a boat slamming upwind. The key factor is sailing technique. Put simply, it's a different way of sailing but no less valid for it.
dom
Well-known member
Your're absolutely right re possibilitu of upgrading, although the force to heel the boat is finite regardless of wind strength; it is the shock waves in big seas that hurt. That said, most rigging is specced with a 5x safety factor and the equipment is invariably procured from exactly the same manufacturers, so I'd say there is no difference whatsoever in this area. Incidentally, cruiser/racers typically have materially heavier rigging though racing boats go for rod with smaller safety factors and tighter replacement schedules. Re slamming, agree, I was on a Brittany Ferries a couple of years ago in a F11 and it slammed, but possibly a little bigger wld be fine
PHN
Member
Upgrade the reefing is good anyway. When buying an old boat for a big trip you don't know what the condition is. Visual inspection will only tell if it is bad when it is worn, not if it is good.
As for slamming ... the Irish pictures show a Varianta 44 just outside of Blacksod, Ireland on the Atlantic a couple of years ago. Weather (wind) was rather extreme, because even big surveyor vessels were seeking shelter. So indeed not your normal trip or reference. In F9+ on the open ocean we were doing only about a knot or so over ground in the direction that we intended to go to. Did not work out, so we returned to port to try it another day. If we did not have the option to return to port (wind direction, etc.) we would in that situation never had left port.
On another trip (Wauquiez Centurion 42) we went north from the Arran islands near Galway. Intention was to reach our destination quickly before bad weather would arrive. Rocky seas, crew worn out, so we took some rest at Inish Boffin before proceeding and indeed made it in time. But again a rocky ride.
As weather was rather extreme in both situations no ship would have given a smooth ride, but it is part of the equasion to find a good solution for situations like these within the realm of reason.
geem
Well-known member
PHN
Member
So ... returning to the question in the opening post we can summarize all comments and conclude that a Bavaria 37 of the early '90's - the better build period - would be an excellent choice (for the spec's in the opening post) and is to be preferred over an MAB, because there is 40+ years of design improvement and lesser maintenance/repair cost. As boats get older there is more wear and tear and usually stuff breaking up happens in the middle of the ocean and not in port.
Last edited:
interloper
Member
I watch YouTube videos of Pogos flying across the water and think that looks like fun.
Then I think about the Beneteaus and other fin keelers that lost their keels at sea.
Then I think of the Satori, the Westsail 32 that survived The Perfect Storm without her crew. The crew had mutinied and called the Coast Guard against the skipper's orders. When the Coast Guard arrived, they ordered everyone off the boat including the skipper. Satori washed up on the beach a few days later with no major damage.
Then I think about the Beneteaus and other fin keelers that lost their keels at sea.
Then I think of the Satori, the Westsail 32 that survived The Perfect Storm without her crew. The crew had mutinied and called the Coast Guard against the skipper's orders. When the Coast Guard arrived, they ordered everyone off the boat including the skipper. Satori washed up on the beach a few days later with no major damage.
dom
Well-known member
Your glasses are more than rose tinted! No boat is perfect; soft-motioned old boats are lovely things, nostalgia is cool, old construction techniques can be works of art. I love racing them, kept light of course
But the fastest, lol, if you say so
Last edited:
PHN
Member
For the pogo's there are minor details like budget and "liveaboard" for long trips to look into.
The Satori survival was in 1991 when the boat (1974) was only 17 years old. Today that same Satori has added an additional 27 years of wear and tear.
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC
Well-known member
Your script reads well but has not relation to reality; its a fantacy. Thousands of people, much more that ever before, cross the oceans with the type of boats that you disagree with. It is made possible because of modern design techniques that allow optimimisation in terms of materials, performance, safety, comfort and production cost and in 40 years time, the future generation of boats will make todays boats look like dodo birds.
Tranona
Well-known member
To help us understand what you mean by this please can you list all the boats that have lost their keels at sea with details of how it happened.
Many thanks.