STIX numbers

D

doug748

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2002
Messages
13,916
Location
UK. South West.
Visit site
I liked to see these on boat reviews but now they seem to disappeared or only appear on certain models.

First the line drawings went, then the stability curves, now the Stability Index. Next will be the RCD category, maybe. The builders have to cobble up these figures and supply them to buyers. So why is the yachting press not publishing them?
 
Perhaps because the reviews are now much more limited, usually only being based on a day sail. They tend to reflect more the perceived needs of potential buyers with the score cards at the end in relation to how suitable a boat might be for a particular use.

However, I think the underlying reason is that buyers are not in general interested - or rather such information does not feature high on their list of decision criteria. Despite the doom mongers at the time there has been no rash of boats turning over - built either before or after the introduction of the RCD. There is an assumption that designers know what they are doing particularly with use of computer programmes to do the sums and design boats suitable for their intended usage. Not something you could say with certainty in earlier times. Most boats in Cat A are far more capable than their owners' sailing ambitions, and those who want to go places where they might encounter more testing conditions seem quite capable of choosing boats suitable for their needs, and doubt that many use the stability data other than to confirm that their choice is suitable.

As you know, I have just bought a new boat. I have never seen the stability data, nor am I particularly interested in it. It exceeds the minimum for Cat A which by definition way exceeds the STIX of a cruising boat that I might have bought 30 years ago. As experience has shown boats that would never get into A or even B have undertaken passages in far more testing conditions than typical coastal cruising.

So, other than interesting those readers who are interested in such information, most of whom are not potential buyers it is difficult to see what it adds to a simple review of a boat. After all, the majority of readers buy "old" boats for which such information is simply not available.
 
Snooks.

I was keen to see the STIX number for the Dufour 310. Is it policy now not to publish the number or are the manufacturers not keen? Do they supply the stability curve and figures or do you have to fend for yourself?

The figures for the new Beneteau 35 would be interesting as well.

Opinion is great but so are facts.
 
doug748 said:
Snooks.

I was keen to see the STIX number for the Dufour 310. Is it policy now not to publish the number or are the manufacturers not keen? Do they supply the stability curve and figures or do you have to fend for yourself?

The figures for the new Beneteau 35 would be interesting as well.

Opinion is great but so are facts.
Click to expand...

Eh? What? Who? I've been in the pub all night so I'll come back to this tomorrow. :0)
 
doug748 said:
Snooks.

I was keen to see the STIX number for the Dufour 310. Is it policy now not to publish the number or are the manufacturers not keen? Do they supply the stability curve and figures or do you have to fend for yourself?

The figures for the new Beneteau 35 would be interesting as well.

Opinion is great but so are facts.
Click to expand...

YM stopped putting STIX number in about 6 months ago. We wanted to make the New boats test and Used boat test as similar as possible for a number of reasons: so the reader can compare old with new, the layout of each test is identical and streamlining all the tests so they are easier for us to produce. So with all that in mind we discussed which of the facts and figures we keep and which we lose. Because STIX aren't avaialable for older boats it made sense to drop them from the new boat test to match the used boat test, given we the layout (inc number of pages) allows maximum of 20 items and there is only so much information we can supply the reader with for them to mak an informed decision.

Although every EU boat sold since 1998 should have a STIX number, getting them from some manufactures was sometimes a job and a half. A lot of the time the information is not readily available and would have to be requested from the agent, who'd then request it from the manufacturer, they would then have to request it from the designer, and when deadlines are tight it wasn't always possible to get it to the magazine in time to go to press, leaving us with no option but to fill the STIX number with "Not supplied" which wasn't ideal for the magazine or the manufacturer - as it could be percived they were trying to hide something.

I would like to think if you're in the market for a new boat you'll do further research, which is beyond the remit of a magazine article really - in my eyes at least. It would be good to include more information, and go back to adding STIX, B/L ratio and AVS graphs, but they take up time and space and are of limited appeal unless you are actually interested in buying that boat.

We're always walking a fine line between educating and informing as many of our readers as possible, without alienating other readers by loading the magazine with content that's of no interest to them.

As I said at the top, they haven't been in the magazine since January this year IIRC, and this the first time I've seen their absence noted on here or via correspondence with the magazine.
 
Another vote here for including STIX or even better a stability curve.
All this basic information is important.

Boat reviews could do more, giving details such hull construction methods, keel attachment, rudder design etc. This sort of information is tough for potential customers to get at least in the early stages when trying to narrow down the options.

The material in some boat reviews is little different from the advertising brochure. This is readily available online. Give us the nitty gritty, ask the tough questions, poke around in the unseen areas. This is the type of boat review I would like to see.
 
Last edited:
noelex said:
The material in some boat reviews is little different from the advertising brochure....8< snip >8...Give us the nitty gritty, ask the tough questions, poke around in the unseen areas. This is the type of boat review I would like to see.
Click to expand...

Does this sound like a brochure?

"For a yacht so responsive to the helm – thanks in part to her twin rudders – it was a shame the steering system was robbing it of any feeling. Even with the autopilot physically disconnected, it felt like steering through treacle. There was no play in the system, and I was left wondering if the whole system was over-tightened."
Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/reviews/yacht-reviews/beneteau-oceanis-35-review#UgV41tIEKeeyY7UZ.99

I do have a good look around the boats and poke into unseen places and use my phone to take photos where I can't see, where applicable I'll write about what I find – with the caveat that there is only so much space in the magazine and I only have a finite amount of time on the boat.

I have 1300 words to talk about her, her performance, her interior, construction, sail config, deck layout etc. I also have 600 words for a conclusion. There is only so much I can fit in, while still making it (what I think is) interesting and readable. I used to end up writing hundreds of words more which would never be seen, now I can pretty much get it to with 10% of the word count but I have to prioritse what I talk about, and what I think is interesting on the boat, while still being fair and honest.
 
snooks said:
..."For a yacht so responsive to the helm – thanks in part to her twin rudders – it was a shame the steering system was robbing it of any feeling.
Click to expand...

When I read that portion (in the magazine) I half-expected a comment about the effect of not having a rudder in the prop-wash on close-quarters manoeuvring. But that is not a topic that often crops up at all. I guess parking isn't part of the test!

Mike.
 
mjcoon said:
When I read that portion (in the magazine) I half-expected a comment about the effect of not having a rudder in the prop-wash on close-quarters manoeuvring. But that is not a topic that often crops up at all. I guess parking isn't part of the test!

Mike.
Click to expand...

I do close quarters handling whenever possible, but most boats behave as they should so it doen't warrant mentioning. I didn't want to labour the point about twin rudders too much as I've mentioned it before, and I don't want to harp on about them as most of the times it won't be an issue, but I did mention it in the following tests:

From the Elan 360:
"With twin rudders you can’t use propwash while manoeuvring, which might be a problem if you’re stationary and trying to bring the bow through the wind in a tight space. With a bit of way on, though, she is quick to respond."
Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/reviews/yacht-reviews/new-boat-test-elan-360#003lko4XjQHMPxZF.99

From the Garcia Exploration 45:
"Manoeuvring her in the confines of a marina isn’t something I envy. With a displacement of 14 tonnes (before cruising clobber and provisions are added) and no direct prop wash over the rudders, a bow thruster is an option I wouldn’t be without – not that marinas will be encountered often."
Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/revi...5-yachting-monthly-review#fAuGvJHtWRxi05rT.99

:0)
 
snooks said:
.................I would like to think if you're in the market for a new boat you'll do further research, which is beyond the remit of a magazine article really - in my eyes at least. It would be good to include more information, and go back to adding STIX, B/L ratio and AVS graphs, but they take up time and space and are of limited appeal unless you are actually interested in buying that boat.
.....
Click to expand...


I think few would argue with that. If all objective detail is left out we might just as well leave it to the clever designers and worry instead about the colour of the woodwork.

It's a shame that we have legislation in statute, the RYA are on the case, and yet manufacturers continue to bury basic information. I would like to see the AVS graphs back as well but getting them is another matter.
 
snooks said:
Does this sound like a brochure?
Click to expand...

Snooks, I did not mean to belittle your work. I have enjoyed your reviews and I know must take a lot of effort. They need to be written to satisfy a wide audience, not just to meet my requirements. From my perspective I would like to know much more detail and fewer generalities (in no particular order):

Was the wiring marine grade and tinned?
What resin is used and where? Is there a token vinyl ester layer or is this a serious attempt to reduce osmosis?
Were the floor and bulkhead finishes laminate, HPL, vinyl or solid wood? What thickness?. Ply or something else?
Were the bulkheads tabbed correctly?
Was the cushion foam good quality high density stuff?
Were the backing plates on cleats and stanchions adequate?
How was the hull/deck joint executed?
What are the fuel/water tanks made from?
How is the keel fastened?
Seacocks bronze or brass?
Etc etc.

Answers to even some of the questions provides an insight into the quality the builder has put into the boat. This information is very difficult to get from other sources.. Answers to these sort of questions need not take a lot of room, but once again from my perspective fewer more detailed reviews would be preferable.

One major advantage is this sort of information is that it will often hold true for other models in the range. So it helps buyers deciding between brand X and brand Y even if the review may not be of the specific boat they were considering.

Just my 2c. I have no idea if this would sell magazines. All I can say this "in depth" information is what I want to read.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound too defensive.

Here's the design and construction bit about next month's (Sept) boat test...this is the raw copy, it got subbed down to fit into the final feature:

"Rather than the windows being cut out of the hull and deck, they are in the mould which gives a neat finish. It's worth noting the quality of the GRP work around the deck and cockpit, with no sign of print through - seeing the cloth weave pattern through the gelcoat. The gelcoat is painted on by hand, and fine 300gsm cloth is used on corners to prevent voids. Deck fitting are tapped into stainless steel and aluminium backing plates laminated into the deck. Above the waterline the hull, and throughout the deck, has a Divinicel foam core. The bow thruster tunnel is moulded in the hull, as is a bilge sump above the keel and the short skeg forward of the spade rudder. The cast iron keel is T-shaped and there is also a crash box forward. "

There are also more details of the construction within the body of the text.

While not every detail you're after I think it's a good compromise. The time I get on the boat varies, on this boat I had two days on board, on others I might only get a few hours. In that time I have to do my notes and photography which breaks down as follows: notes below (2 hours), notes on deck (1 hour), Interior photos (2 hours), sailing (2 hours), sailing photography (1 hour). This is usually the minimum time I need, ideally I like more and I then I can be more thorough.

I'm just about to start writing the next boat test (which again I was able to have 2 days on)...She has all bulkheads laminated to the (vinylester resin) hand laminated hull and deck, balsa cored above waterline, inside the hull is lined in white painted ash, and all the furniture is laminated into the hull too. The keel fits around a stub sump in the hull and is held on by 11 bolts. The keel blade on this version was galvanised steel frame which has a foam core and GRP fairing, Oh and 1,400kg of lead on the bottom! The rudder shape was "borrowed" from the fin of a fin whale and has SS stock and self-aligning bearings. Tanks are plastic. Two 85Ah gel batteries, with a 42Ah AGM engine battery. The hull deck joint is bolted and bonded and the join covered by a teak strake. If you want to know more you'll have to read about it in the October issue :0)
 
snooks said:
Here's the design and construction bit about next month's (Sept) boat test...this is the raw copy, it got subbed down
Click to expand...
Perfect :)

Don't let the "powers that be" edit this sort of stuff out.

These days there is lots of general information available on the internet, but these sort of specific details that you have included are gold for someone shopping for a new yacht, or even as general interest. (How does my yacht compare to xxx).

I guess my message is this sort of "investigative journalism" is the sort of information that justifies spending money to read.

There are lots of magazines and web resources that publish superficial reviews. I suspect there is market for a more in depth analysis. Once again I voicing what I would like to read. I have no idea if this would be a commercial success.

PS I love your photography. Don't skip the time spent on this :)
 
Last edited:
noelex said:
Snooks, I did not mean to belittle your work. I have enjoyed your reviews and I know must take a lot of effort. They need to be written to satisfy a wide audience, not just to meet my requirements. From my perspective I would like to know much more detail and fewer generalities (in no particular order):

Was the wiring marine grade and tinned?
What resin is used and where? Is there a token vinyl ester layer or is this a serious attempt to reduce osmosis?
Were the floor and bulkhead finishes laminate, HPL, vinyl or solid wood? What thickness?. Ply or something else?
Were the bulkheads tabbed correctly?
Was the cushion foam good quality high density stuff?
Were the backing plates on cleats and stanchions adequate?
How was the hull/deck joint executed?
What are the fuel/water tanks made from?
How is the keel fastened?
Seacocks bronze or brass?
Etc etc.

Answers to even some of the questions provides an insight into the quality the builder has put into the boat. This information is very difficult to get from other sources.. Answers to these sort of questions need not take a lot of room, but once again from my perspective fewer more detailed reviews would be preferable.

One major advantage is this sort of information is that it will often hold true for other models in the range. So it helps buyers deciding between brand X and brand Y even if the review may not be of the specific boat they were considering.

Just my 2c. I have no idea if this would sell magazines. All I can say this "in depth" information is what I want to read.
Click to expand...

As Graham says, it is difficult to cover all aspects of a complex thing like a cruising boat in the limited time he has and the space to get it over.

As you may have seen I have just been through the process of buying a new, mass produced boat and all three of the boats on my short list have been subject to YM (and PBO for one of them) reports - but before Graham was the reviewer. From my point of view what I gained from them, and the videos made of each, was a perspective from somebody who had actually sailed and inspected all three. In each case it higlighted the key differences, which to be honest are not great as all three are aimed at exactly the same market. They served as a good reference point in the process as although we spent at least half a day on each of them within a 2 week period, you still need time for reflection away from the boats. When it came to the final choice, which was a close run thing, we used the videos to refresh our memories of what we had seen.

As for the technical information and details of build there was no difficulty in getting the information in respect of your list either by inspection or asking the dealer or builder. Much of what you have on your list is now a given in the sense that the standards within the RDC lay down the minimum requirements, although it is clear that builders use different methods to achieve or exceed these. What I can say, having bought a new boat in 2001 from the same builder as the new one we have chosen, is that standards of construction of the new boats - all three, not just the one we chose - are way ahead of 2001. This is not to say that the 2001 boat was "bad", and in fact stood up very well to 7 years of intensive chartering with nothing significant failing, just that the new boats benefit from the investment in modern processes to improve design and build as well as quality assurance. The boat was completed to the day that was quoted and is exactly as we specified.

It is about to be launched next week and I have spent hours going over it and can honestly say have not found anything that needs attention during commissioning. I have been around boats, both from within the industry and as a buyer/user for close on 40 years and have seen some of the horror stories of boat building in the past and am of the view that it is really difficult for a "bad" boat to get onto the market now. Many of today's boats may not appeal to some, particularly those wedded to older designs, but in terms of fitness for purpose they do well.

If you are interested you can see a bit about my new (and old) boat on the two threads I started earlier in the week.
 
noelex said:
Perfect :)

Don't let the "powers that be" edit this sort of stuff out.
Click to expand...

The thing is as Tech ed, I am most of the "powers that be" in this section of the magazine, there is still Kieran who doens't so much edit things out, but makes my waffle clearer and easier to read. I have to make a call on what's more important and make sure the words fit on the page. I think I took the information about the backing pads out, because I had to fit in that a bow thruster was optional. but most of it made it IIRC.

noelex said:
PS I love your photography. Don't skip the time spent on this :)
Click to expand...

Thank you - I could spend less time shooting the interiors and sailing, but I won't compromise on the quality of my photography.
 
Tranona said:
Much of what you have on your list is now a given in the sense that the standards within the RDC lay down the minimum requirements,
Click to expand...
Congratulations on the new yacht.

I too am in the process of looking for a new boat. My experience is different. Despite looking at boats on the expensive end of the spectrum there are areas where quality and best practice have been compromised.

Boats have to be built for a realistic price so some of the compromises are understandable, although for an owner that keeps the boat a reasonable length of time it would be cheaper to get the details right from the beginning. The use of brass rather than bronze seacocks is a classical example.

I don't believe the standards offer the buyer much protection. They set a very low base line. The fundamental construction of the boat is the area where the standards should should be most strict. For example, Without specialised knowledge a buyer cannot assess if the laminate thickness around the keel is adequate. Here the standards if they are going to achieve anything should protect the buyer and ensure a Cat A boat is fit for purpose as described.

There are failings of the standards even at this fundamental level. Look at the report on the Cheeki Rafiki for example. There are yachts with 100° AVS that have been certified as meeting Cat A requirements. Boats with spade rudders where the top bearing is secured to ply not even tabbed on to the structure etc etc.

The bottom line is do you trust a standard that allows the use of brass seacocks?

Anyway I would encourage potential owners to employ their own due diligence and not place much emphasis on the standards.

This is not practical for some buyers, as they lack the experience and knowledge to to be able to make these assessments. Magazine tests are conducted by extremely experienced yachtsmen. It would be great if they could play a bigger role in identifying the compromises.

This would also help raise the standards. At the moment boatbuilders know they can use brass seacocks, un-tinned wire etc and no one will notice. Mostly they are right. In my view the magazine tests should both notice and make the space available to report these sort of details.
 
"We're always walking a fine line between educating and informing as many of our readers as possible, without alienating other readers by loading the magazine with content that's of no interest to them." Snooks


Your point about education is a good one. For every reader thinking about buying a new boat there will be hundreds only mildly interested and thousands forming long term opinions and aspirations.

Looking again at the Dufour 310 (simply because it is there, before us). The boat test reveals it is a Cat B design, this is unusual in itself because boats of this length are normally massaged into Cat A by canny designers, as already pointed out. A similar process to the "rule cheating" in racing.
Thanks to Barr Avel we know that the STIX figure is 33.22 and AVS 128.3. Very respectable for a boat of this size and in the RCD cat A range. However it is a Cat B boat. We can only assume that the "light ship" figures give us the flattering figures and the simple addition of a crew pushes the craft into the lower category. This is very useful information. My inference is that it is not a boat you would want to put mainsail reefing on or put unnecessary weight on the rig or, indeed, overburden with payload.

There could be another explanation but it is the ferreting out of the figures that begs the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top