Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

[hairbox]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

What bad stuff have you heard about Bav's, as an owner myself I would be able to answer your question more accuratly.

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

Am toying with buying one - a JenBen of about 35ft. Every one I have sailed has been a charter / school boat and seems to have worn well. nevertheless, I am still a bit nervous on the basis of the generally derogatory comments.

But then a Swede is at least half as much again. And there are no Brits. So where's the choice?

I suppose the real question is how flighty / difficult to contraol in bad weather are they?

 

[billmacfarlane]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

Sail across to France, assuming your terribly built boat will make it of course. Look around all the French marinas. See many other boats apart from Bens and Javs ? Is the whole French nation wrong ? Don't think so, though you wouldn't think it if all you did was read some of the comments written here. With regards to your question about heavy weather, they're absolutely fine for the conditions they were designed for. If you're like most of us, and sail locally with the odd foray abroad then they're more than capable. If you want to go chasing whales and polar bears look elsewhere.

 

[Samphire]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

Its been discussed at length on numerous occasions on Scuttlebutt previously,but for what its worth your points are indeed valid.However you omitted the consideration of depreciation and resale value. Also in exactly the same way as with cars or anything else for that matter ,perhaps you might desire to be that bit different from the pack..........

 

[Sea Devil]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

I think there was a very reasonable statement made that nobody was going to drown sailing AWB. You can sail anything across the atlantic/pacific et al. Very much the man/person rather than the boat.

The difference is pehaps this - if you want to drive a car from Lands end to Glasgow regurlaly what is more suitible? A Fiat Uno or Renault 4 or an Audi/Jaguar/BMW? All will do the job. The fatigue level will probably be higher in the former than the latter.

Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...

Really depends what you want to do with boat - be like 99% and enjoy sailing in local waters most of the year with some longer trips in the summer holidays - Why buy a Roll Royce to do that?

If you want to spend years entering strange harbours, dodgy anchorages, crowded strange marinas and fuel berths where you will be lucky if you don't pick up the odd scrape then perhaps you want something a bit tougher - but you can sail alomost anything - anywhere!

-----

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

[ QUOTE ]
You can sail almost anything - anywhere!



[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree - never a truer word was spoken.
Should - but won't - put this AWB / "classic design" arguments to bed for ever.
As much - IMHO - is up to the skipper/crew as it is to the boat.

 

[Robin]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

[ QUOTE ]
Its the same with boats - The more expensive - heavier boats are probably going to survive the rough and tumble of the cruising lifestyle better. Generally you can leave the helm of the more expensive boats whilst you put the kettle on whilst the lighter versions need more attention...


[/ QUOTE ]

There is an implication here that the Moody 36 that you have cruised extensively is one of these heavier, tougher boats. In reality the Moodys of that era were considered lightly built and with relatively low ballast weights, resistance to heeling came from form stabilty (ie wide beam). Also the Moody 36 and the bigger versions from Angus Primrose had wide sterns to incorporate the owners suites with large double bed that, and the spacious accomodation was their main selling point. All these features are those that are thrown into the AWB versus traditional argument as being bad points, in truth therefore these boats were the forerunners of a modern day AWB! In reality these Moodys have cruised extensively as you have shown, despite not having the underwater profile or the weight of a Colin Archer.

Modern AWBs are criticised for having flat forward sections that can cause slamming. Those who say that conveniently forget that many of the so called traditionals in their current form have been tweaked below the waterline in recent years to try and get them to sail better, their shapes are much closer to the lines that are being criticised. Designs have evolved over the years, buyers want more performance and more comfort and modern designs provide these features but still with the usual compromises depending on which features are most important to which buyer.

The biggest irritation to me on this subject is the sweeping generalisation that all 'this' is good and all 'that' is bad. If that were indeeed the case we would have just one design from one designer that comes by the metre, you buy an 8 metre, 10 metre or whatever, each just scaled up/down from the so-called ideal design.

Sorry Bambola, this wasn't really aimed at you but at the general misconceptions and prejudices that are around. I'm not saying that all AWBs are good for all purposes either, there are some I wouldn't want to cross the Channel in but there are others I would happily go transocean in. Likewise there are some 'traditional' boats about that I wouldn't want at any price either, just as there are a few that I would.

 

[Sea Devil]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

Agree with everything you say about designe - shape - and Moody 36 being the fore runner of AWBs today.

There is nothing wrong with the average AWB except perhaps it is not constructed to take the daily punishment of long distance cruising in strange places over a period of years. Moorings for example put all their AWB's out to pasture after 5 years of chartering. I think the logic is that by then they start to look a little tatty. Sunsail seem to keep their flotilla AWBs going for years and years with continus maintance but they are pretty basic.

The heavily built rolls royce boats will still look good after a longer period and probably withstand a bit more punishment.

Having said all that and not wanting to be rude about other peoples boats I have had two experiences of boats built to a price. My 2nd boat to please my wife was a Jaguar 25. when I had her a year she broke her rudder off Aldernay race in a force 6 - I delivered a new Bavaria from Chichester to Gib in pretty good weather but by the time she got there not one door any longer fitted the door frame and I found the experience much more tiring than the other dozen or so times I have done the trip - Having said all that the subsequent owners of my Jaguar had lots of fun with her around the Thames estury and no problems and I suspect the owner of the Bavraia really enjoyed the marinas of the Spanish coast in the Med. Horses for courses and neither of those boats were in danger of sinking although the lack of a rudder did cost my insurers a towage to fee to the French Navy!

 

[Robin]

Re: Are Ben/Jen/Bavs really all that bad?

[ QUOTE ]
Moorings for example put all their AWB's out to pasture after 5 years of chartering. I think the logic is that by then they start to look a little tatty. Sunsail seem to keep their flotilla AWBs going for years and years with continus maintance but they are pretty basic.



[/ QUOTE ]

I rather think too that this is because customers want a nice newish boat. After all if you rent a car you would be pretty disappointed if it was over 6 months old, that is what you expect. Plus most I believe of the fleet charter boats are privately owned and leased to the likes of Sunsail and Moorings under a purchase scheme, their owners expect to get a very useable (or saleable) boat back at the end of the agreement so in fact that is testimony to some ability to stand a lot of wear and tear. Charter boats will be much more heavily used than liveaboards IMO, the latter spend much of their time in harbour whereas the chartered ones will be constant use, often by people who will not take anything like the care that an owner would, even assuming they had the knowledge to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
The heavily built rolls royce boats will still look good after a longer period and probably withstand a bit more punishment

[/ QUOTE ]

Not many of these are chartered and get that kind of wear and tear. If they were really the best value for money, surely the charter companies would chose them in preference to production boats. After all the idea is to maximise profits, and they would also be able to appeal to the boaty snobbery as well! For the record when we bought our 16 year old Jeanneau, it was after looking at boat after boat from the likes of HR/Westerly/Moody/Oyster. We saw a LOT of very tired and overpriced boats from these before settling on our Sun Legende 41 which had returned from 6 years as a liveaboard in the Med only 3 days earlier, pretty well non stop from Malta except for a very brief stopover for a sail repair in Lisbon. We bought her on the spot, one of the few we had seen that wasn't tired! Truth is that it is up to the owners how well they last, even a Rolls Royce needs servicing doesn't it?