Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

[graham]

Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

I have never sailed one but allways admired the Rival 31 32/34 yet Tom Cunliffe seriously does not like them and says they cant go to windward in a blow.

I am surprised at this as I considered this would probably be a strong point for the Rivals.

Any Rival owners with a counter point of view?

 

[julianmingham]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

As a part-owner of a Rival 34 I disagree with Tom's comments entirely. There have been numerous occasions when I've continued sailed to windward when other vessels have given up and sought shelter. Also I've sailed in company with a variety of other boats and I've never noticed that the Rival had an issue with sailing to windward compared to other vessels.

However, my Rival is the deep keel version and I've never sailed the shallow keel format.

The article does mention that the deeper keel improves performance to windward. Maybe the concerns about the ability to drive to weather only apply to the shallow keel version ?

 

[RivalRedwing]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

There is a discussion relating to this on the Rival Owners Association website (the forum section):

http://www.rivalowners.org.uk/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=ed248b5f00fdb14776148860fd9976c4;act=ST;f=1;t=32

One message in the discussion is from an owner who contacted Tom after publication of the article; Tom apparently 'professes no knowledge of any adverse comments as he had not written or seen the article'

Given that the a reasonable person would consider the comments written by Tom to be less than complimentary about the R32, one should perhaps wonder about the accuracy of the journalism within the article. I have an R32 and have found it to be an excellent cruising boat in all weathers, it perfectly capable of beating to windward although it may not point quite as well as a boat designed with half an eye to racing.

I was amazed at Tom's comments in the article relating to the R32 but found solace with the other reviewers. On the basis of Tom's subsequent comments, I consider the article a shoddy piece of work written by someone who is seeking to develop a career with the Sunday Sport or News of the World. If this is the way that YM is going then my subscription is not going to be renewed.

 

[R32Stbrigid]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

As the owner of St Brigid, featured in the article, I was surprised and disappointed by Tom's comments. He was complimentary on the day of the test. The conditions were very light (I saw a maximum of 12 is knots over the deck) which are hardly conditions in which a Rival will show her true colours. I consider the boat to be good to windward in a blow, often making good progress when other, supposedly faster boats dont. The other testers summaries were probably more balanced when they regarded the R32 as the pick of the bunch for an affordable long distance cruiser.

 

[Aeolus_IV]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

I'd just like to say that I found the article interesting, but as has been pointed out, the conclusions seem to have been drawn from an uneven playing field. Attempting to compare yachts which variy in length by 4 feet (thats 14% of the length of the shortest boat), with standards of equipment ranging from new to original seems like a task which is doomed to mediocre results at best.

I would hope that this is a sign from YM that perhaps they recognise that owners of "MAB"s (myself included /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) deserve recognition and an occational place in the magazine. I for one, while having a passing interest in the latest "Benteau this" or "Jeaneau that" can't ever see myself being able to afford or choosing to "upgrade". So I find that my sailing interests falls cleanly between the various publications I know off: Too young to be included in the heady world of "classic" yachts, apparently too old to be of interest to readers of YM.

We shall see. Perhaps with some constructive comments and gentle nudging we could find YM appealing to a broader range of owners, more in line with the "demographic" spread of yachts. As things have been going lately, I had pretty much concluded that I wasn't going to renew my subscription, they have 6 months to convince me otherwise.

Regards, Jeff.

 

[Santana379]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

Agree with completely Aeolus_IV. This test was not typical of YM, but was of boats from the same planet that most of us inhabit. All three boats tested have real merit, but are not of course really comparable with each other. Three individual tests, taking into account the likely sailing each boat would be purchased for, would have been much more relevant.

The A-Z that YM did provid a helpful but brief view of virtually every boat I've ever heard of.

Perhaps YM could do a "then and now" test for popular 2nd hand yachts, reprinting a good part of their original test with a second set of impressions from an up to date test of a used example.

I think Sailing Today's used tests work very well, testing a single boat type and providing a broad summary of a handful of alternatives.

Can I say "Sailing Today" on this forum. Is this why I still don't have "regular user" status?

 

[Rich_F]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

I'd like to put the other point of view...

Putting aside issues of unbalanced reporting and unattributable criticism in this particular article, I'd much rather see this style of boat review, involving multiple boats.

I generally find single boat reviews to be formulaic, going over the same old facts and figures, with a little description about how she sailed. Having multiple boats allows some direct and focussed comparison, not only regarding outright performance, but also look and feel, and practicality.

The reviewers do need to be careful though, that they ensure that they clearly identify their comments as pertaining to the specific boat, or the design.

 

[pessimist]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

I'm a Rival owner but may we put this in perspective? All three are a super boats - I'd enjoy sailing on any of them - you pays yer money....... Just think how awful it would be if the article had concentrated on AWBs (Auld W*nkers Bathtubs?)

 

[Sgeir]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

[ QUOTE ]
Can I say "Sailing Today" on this forum. Is this why I still don't have "regular user" status?

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh dear.............

 

[pragmatist]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

[ QUOTE ]
Just think how awful it would be if the article had concentrated on AWBs (Auld W*nkers Bathtubs?)

[/ QUOTE ]

See you Jimi !

 

[Santana379]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

A point well made Rich_F - hard to disagree with your logic.

However in this case, as pointed out by Aeolus_IV, the boats were not particularly comparable. They were of different price, size, performance, keel type etc.

YM recognised this by introducing the boats as "three very different designs", but the result was a bit like a comparative road test of a petrol saloon, a diesel estate, and a sports car.

 

[RivalRedwing]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

Below from Tom, which I have copied from the the ROA forum. Makes for interesing reading - how about a response from YM??

Tom Cunliffe has asked that we post the following reply for the ROA forums following the YM article.

"Dear Fiona

I still haven't seen the article, but I've got to say that I'm really disappointed it has quoted a part of what I had said without giving me the chance to see what had been written.

The only reason we didn't like the Rival at the National Sailing Centre was because although she was professionally fitted out to the highest standard of any of our boats, and was equipped with top gear and a fine suit of Ratsey sails, our shoal-draught 34 was much slower to windward than a Contessa 32 (the other option for us), particularly in a blow. This sometimes made it hard to run a good course in rough weather with so much demand on our time. What you don't mention me as saying - so I assume the writer doesn't either - is that in most other respects the boat was by far the best we had. I wrote all this in my comments, but, sadly, the main thing that seems to have come through is that for our specific use, the boat fell short in this one way.

Thanks for letting me know about it so kindly.

Tom

www.tomcunliffe.com"

 

[westhinder]

Re: Rival Twister and Arpege April YM

Two days on and still no response from YM. Embarrassed silence? Just waiting until it blows over?