PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I was researching today some recent MBY publications and boat reports and none of them state how a boat is build.
So I decided to do a poll about this.
So I decided to do a poll about this.
Should boat reviews and report give construction details and data Poll
- Thread starter PowerYachtBlog
- Start date
Whitelighter
Well-Known Member
I have been getting various old MBM and MB&Y boat test reports from about 1991-1999 recently and one thing I have noticed is they are much more techincal and indepth. Most give hull profile diagrams and talk about layup and construction. Also, they go into the techincal detail and as such often run to 6-8 pages.
Todays reports sometimes seem to be a couple of big glossy pics and a heap of good news. I like the techinal stuff and would welcome it back along side the big glossy stuff /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Todays reports sometimes seem to be a couple of big glossy pics and a heap of good news. I like the techinal stuff and would welcome it back along side the big glossy stuff /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
AdeOlly
Well-Known Member
I agree 100% with all of that.
B175Chris
Well-Known Member
There is probably a market online but to be honest, if I was reading MBM or MBY and had to read thrugh loads of boring technical information about materials the hull is made up of etc I would probably end up topping myself /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I like the pictures and basic info in the mags, if I want more then yep, I suppose an online resource would be where I would want to turn.
I like the pictures and basic info in the mags, if I want more then yep, I suppose an online resource would be where I would want to turn.
Whitelighter
Well-Known Member
Chris, the repaorts dont read like that at all. infact, the reports were cleverly laid out so the data is broken down into sections so that, if anything, it was easier than it is today to skip to the section that was relevent to you.
I have a good example on my desktop. If no-one at IPC minds I will convert it to jpg and post a picture, just to illutrate my point and give some good feed back on the mags.
IPC guys, would this be ok?
I have a good example on my desktop. If no-one at IPC minds I will convert it to jpg and post a picture, just to illutrate my point and give some good feed back on the mags.
IPC guys, would this be ok?
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
In fairness to MBY, 90% of the boats they test have the same basic construction, with only minor variations like whether the glass is laid by hand or gun. Where boats have been different, like the Prinz epoxy sandwich construction, they have mentioned it and given a brief description of the difference. I vote option 2, but only when there's something new to tell us.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I have been getting various old MBM and MB&Y boat test reports from about 1991-1999 recently and one thing I have noticed is they are much more techincal and indepth. Most give hull profile diagrams and talk about layup and construction. Also, they go into the techincal detail and as such often run to 6-8 pages.
Todays reports sometimes seem to be a couple of big glossy pics and a heap of good news. I like the techinal stuff and would welcome it back along side the big glossy stuff /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
yep it was perfect in those times and in the 80s they used also to give the weights and thickness used as communicated by the builder
as Jez says it used to be in columns underneath the technical data, with a clear hull shape description
I have been getting various old MBM and MB&Y boat test reports from about 1991-1999 recently and one thing I have noticed is they are much more techincal and indepth. Most give hull profile diagrams and talk about layup and construction. Also, they go into the techincal detail and as such often run to 6-8 pages.
Todays reports sometimes seem to be a couple of big glossy pics and a heap of good news. I like the techinal stuff and would welcome it back along side the big glossy stuff /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
yep it was perfect in those times and in the 80s they used also to give the weights and thickness used as communicated by the builder
as Jez says it used to be in columns underneath the technical data, with a clear hull shape description
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
For a while MBM also used to include fabbo exploded 3D drawings of the boat in question. Much better for understanding the layout of a boat then pics or diagrams. Shame they disappeared
Also didn't MBY give lay up weights for important parts of the hull at one time?
Also didn't MBY give lay up weights for important parts of the hull at one time?
JohnRob
Well-Known Member
One of the benefits used to be keeping the mags and comparing the specs - layup weights, hull profile etc. Gives you an idea what to look for when you come to choose.
What about storage capacities? Some of the sort of measures that are taken for granted in the automotive industry would be nice. Would give just a bit of objectivity - sometimes when a boat is described as good in a partiular respect, you wonder whether it really is comparing it with its peers.
Old reviews weren't perfect. But neither are the coffee table reviews of today. And yes, you are right, the boring stuff can be separated out and tabulated.
ItS
What about storage capacities? Some of the sort of measures that are taken for granted in the automotive industry would be nice. Would give just a bit of objectivity - sometimes when a boat is described as good in a partiular respect, you wonder whether it really is comparing it with its peers.
Old reviews weren't perfect. But neither are the coffee table reviews of today. And yes, you are right, the boring stuff can be separated out and tabulated.
ItS
gjgm
Well-Known Member
dont you have some clue from the builder in question? If I was thinking of some Ocean crossing animal, I would assume its suitably constructed. If I was thinking of some bay bowrider, again<I'd think it was suitably constructed.
No, actually, I dont think its of any interest in a review for more than a nod.. When you pay 50pct more/less, its usually pretty damn obvious why. How long would any builder seriously misrepresenting the product survive (when half of then are going down the pan anyway...) Id go with the brand reputation, and dont want to hear about the suction/injection/hand rolling whatever. When did a GRP model last fall to bits, out of curiosity?
As a question.. seemed a while back the injection method was the holy grail.. lower weights/less power/less materiels and costs.. seem to have been a few reviews on these lighter boats suggesting that actually a bit more weight might help out at sea.. dont know.. any opinions?
No, actually, I dont think its of any interest in a review for more than a nod.. When you pay 50pct more/less, its usually pretty damn obvious why. How long would any builder seriously misrepresenting the product survive (when half of then are going down the pan anyway...) Id go with the brand reputation, and dont want to hear about the suction/injection/hand rolling whatever. When did a GRP model last fall to bits, out of curiosity?
As a question.. seemed a while back the injection method was the holy grail.. lower weights/less power/less materiels and costs.. seem to have been a few reviews on these lighter boats suggesting that actually a bit more weight might help out at sea.. dont know.. any opinions?
