Real Differences Between Mass Produced and Quality Yachts

jerrytug said:
Who designed the boat? A faceless accountant twiddling with a computer, or Ray Wall, Colin Archer, Mr Van de Stadt..etc etc?
Click to expand...

Beneteau / Jeanneau have used Bruce Farr, Jean Berret, Joubert-Nivelt, Jean Marie Finot, Phillipe Briand, German Frers, Daniel Andrieu. Looks more like a list of proven yacht designers than a list of faceless accountants to me.
 
jwilson said:
Yes - AWBs have corners cut to save money, more and more these days, but they are generally quite well engineered and more than strong enough for 99.9% of sailors actual usage. For the one in a thousand who actually wants to go to remote places in seriously heavy weather, they are the wrong boat.

The one bit I disagree with you is re "Vice-free handling" - yes when manouevring under power in tight spaces they are good, but under sail they almost all suffer from "double-aft-cabin-sterns" which when combined with relatively low ballast ratios are the cause of the rounding-up in a gust effect. My Jeanneau sails very well for a spacious cruiser, EXCEPT in gusty conditions. It's not the wind strength that is the problem, reefed down she will get from A to B in anything I choose (these days) to sail in, but you have to reef for the gusts, meaning that in gusty wind you are either underpowered a lot of the time, or have to play the main constantly - not easy if singlehanded. In my old narrow long-keeler you reefed for the light bits, and just carried on heeled a bit more in the gusts. She would track on happily even heeled 45 degrees with water washing down the sidedecks and almost coming into the cockpit. The modern Jeanneau steers beautifully until heeled maybe 16 degrees, but one or two more degrees heel and you have lost control. Not sure of the exact angle but it's pretty low....

Nevertheless on the whole I prefer the very civilised modern boat.
Click to expand...

And i wonder if the other modern quality boats like HR etc are not now the same? Then again we will probably never find out as there dont seem to be many current owners of a hr 342 or 372 on here. I wonder why??!!
 
Finbar said:
I bought a 12 year old Malo myself on the basis I would prefer quality engineered in from the start. She came almost as good as new, and is very well built where it matters as well as nicely finished internally, and is a good passage maker. The Ben/Bav Bavarias etc are fine for their purpose, but I would not see the point in spending substantial money trying to upgrade an old one.
Click to expand...

Ok good stuff. Which malo? Then i can do a price comparison for fun. There was a nice 36 on jonics website for a bit.

Ok next question if you buy quality second hand what age is best. I would think 20 years means money spending. 5? Not enough depreciation. 10??
 
Next question. I also wonder if say buying a boat to go to the med and do am Atlantic circuit whether a bit of size would be good, ie 40ft awb vs 35 ft quality.
 
roblpm said:
Next question. I also wonder if say buying a boat to go to the med and do am Atlantic circuit whether a bit of size would be good, ie 40ft awb vs 35 ft quality.
Click to expand...

Going to the Med and doing the Atlantic are rather different things. If you intend spending time in the Med then an AWB is ideal and quite capable of getting round the outside. Alternatively you might be lucky enough to get a shallow draft, decent sized boat like my Bavaria 37 and go through the canals! All a very different proposition to doing the Atlantic, although, of course many people also do it in AWBs - just look at the entry for the ARC.

If you are thinking of an AWB then recognise that they are not all the same and some are better starting points for upgrading than others. For obvious reasons my preference is for a Bavaria. I bought mine, new for charter use and it did 7 seasons intensive chartering, covering more miles and engine hours than most private boats do in a lifetime. Nothing serious broke or fell off and still looks good (and everything works) after 14 years.

If you can afford a relatively new quality boat, then go for it. However be just as wary of older boats, irrespective of where they started in the pecking order. If you want to maximise the amount of boat you get for your money, then in general the newer the boat, the better.
 
Tranona said:
Actually most modern boats are designed by highly qualified naval architects and their teams using sophisticated design tools, rather than single individuals using paper and pencil - and often getting it wrong!
Click to expand...

One of the interesting things I learned from a talk given by Chuck Paine a couple of years ago was that he introduced FE (finite element), CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and CAD (computer aided design) systems to his design studio as soon as they became available, which was - he says - rather sooner than the competition did. I have no doubt that if they were designing today, Archer, van de Stadt, Fyffe and the rest of the classic greats would be using every tool available to them.
 
There is no reason for those of us with HRs and the like to be patronising about mass-produced boats. In fact, HRs are far from hand-made and I believe the wood for the cabin goes into a machine and comes out cut, finished, varnished and dried, ready to be fitted, like everything else through the companionway.
On the other hand, there are some differences between HR/Malos etc and the big buoys, and this is reflected in the price. Some of the equipment is better quality and more substantial, and more care is given to some aspects of design, to do with living comfort and ease of sailing. This is partly due to the need for other builders to consider the charter market. HR claim correctly that you see no bare plastic when sitting in the cabin.

I started with smaller AWBs, but when I retired I intended to spend three months on board in the summer. I therefore looked for a boat which:

would hold its value and be sellable when I wished
would be comfortable both when relaxing and sailing
would be easy to handle
would carry enough fuel and water
would have no vices

My 34 won't be everyone's choice but meets my needs better than the alternatives when we bought her in 2000, in fact, she was £5-10,000 cheaper than the Westerly Ocean 33.
 
I don't know whether it's an illusion but when sailing the HR/Malø, they feel more solid and together than the benjenbav offerings.

And the interiors are streets ahead in terms of quality and appearance. IMO.

whether they are worth the substantial extra cost is another matter.

If choosing between a new benjenbav or a 15 year old Scandinavian offering of equivalent length to achieve price parity, I would go Scandi, crew would go benjenbav as the interior volume and accommodation is bigger.

Declaration of interest, owner of old Malø.
 
1999 Hallberg Rassy off yachtworld £126k
New bavaria cruiser 37 £91k

Maybe the prices will even up when options added and haggled on the hr.

Ok so for those of you who have bought a 15 year old malo/hr etc what have you spent replacing worn out stuff :

Standing / running rigging
Engine??!!!!
Sails

Etc etc??
 
pvb said:
The base price is for a very basic spec, and doesn't include delivery or commissioning. You'd need to add at least £20-25K to get anywhere near a sensible spec.
Click to expand...

Ok so the 15 year mark looks like a good estimate.

One bad mark for the bavaria seems to be the lack of published stability data? Hr and malo very easy to find on their website.
 
roblpm said:
And i wonder if the other modern quality boats like HR etc are not now the same? Then again we will probably never find out as there dont seem to be many current owners of a hr 342 or 372 on here. I wonder why??!!
Click to expand...

We've sailed in company with a couple of fairly new HRs and both owners were unhappy with long snagging lists and commented they aren't built like the old ones.
 
roblpm said:
I thought HR were renowned for this? Or am I mistaken??
Click to expand...

You may be correct. Talking to our surveyor he did say that some (no names mentioned) "quality" boats also used them as the RCD only requires 5 year life. Of course the RCD design criteria was put together by manufacturers who are no doubt more concerned with margin than safety.
 
To answer the original question, the real difference between HR and AWB (which has been touched on) is in the method of construction.

HR has the deck and hull bonded together before the joinery goes in and gets fitted. With an AWB the joinery is dropped into to the open hull and then the deck is bonded in place.

Any 11 meter FRP object will vary slightly in shape and size as it cures, even though it came from the same mould.
Both build methods use CNC routers, etc this means joinery to joinery joints can be perfect but does mean that a greater tolerance must be allowed between joinery and moulding peculiarities of hull/deck. What this means for HR is more hand profiling of CNC produced parts and everything going in through the companionway; joinery is trimmed to match the exact profile of its intended location. On an AWB, I noticed wider joints between bulkheads and hull/deck that are bonded in place with a 'filler/adhesive'.

I've now owned both types for 3 years respectively and have been very pleased with both. I appreciate the higher ballast ratio and notice less noise when punching into chop/big seas both from the hull shape but also the lack of creaking from internal joinery.
I guess its a choice of what value you place on each of their respective qualities.

Cruising this summer we pondered if the guy with his 100m helicopter laden vessel was deriding more pleasure than we do from our boat and concluded he was not. Just like the guy whose boat is half the length of mine! Its about enjoying what you've got!
 
Last edited:
GrahamM376 said:
We've sailed in company with a couple of fairly new HRs and both owners were unhappy with long snagging lists and commented they aren't built like the old ones.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. You're the chap who said that all the Bavaria owners that you had met said they wished they'd bought, er, your boat!

My friends and I found to the contrary as we took our three Mobo's south.

roblpm said:
One bad mark for the bavaria seems to be the lack of published stability data?
Click to expand...

Pictures and words :encouragement:

http://vimeo.com/87355387

Oh, I owned 3 Rassys before going over to the dark-side. They were all slow and we only ever went out in the same conditions as other boats.

Nice upholstery. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top