Swan 46 against a Bene 473 for blue water cruising

[gertha]

My blue water sailing is limited to a light weight German 37 foot yacht.
We have only sailed 2 Atlantic circits together, plus a few other sails in 10 years.

I am now thinking of moving to a bigger boat, a round world is the next step up.

My short list is between a heavier boat , probably Swan 46 and a lighter option poss a Bene 473

I have always enjoyed making 5 knots in 4 knots of wind, and this the Swan will presumably fail on; but when we spend 2 days in a force 8 the light weight is hard work.

I am looking for input from anyone who has sailed in both a leightweight and a heavy weight, is there a better option.


Simon

 

[temptress]

Swan 46, no contest even if the Swan needs a complete refit and the Benny is ready to go

 

[geem]

Swan 46, no contest even if the Swan needs a complete refit and the Benny is ready to go

Couldnt agree more.
The idea that heavy boats dont go in light wind is a fallacy. Given enough sail area heavy boats can certainly go.
A deep draft yacht with good ballast can carry huge sail area for such occations.

 

[cmedsailor]

My short list is between a heavier boat , probably Swan 46 and a lighter option poss a Bene 473



Simon

Just curious; isn't the price of the first probably 2 or 3 times the price of the second?

 

[KellysEye]

We chartered AWB's ranging form 32 feet to 52 feet many of them multiple times over 20 years and then we bought a heavy displacement, long keel cutaway forefoot steel ketch to go long distance sailing. Heavier boats are more sea kindly than AWB's and have an easier motion and ours wouldn't broach, turn into wind in a gust or surf. I would go with the Swan. Out of interest one thing we found was Jeanneaus are better up wind than Benetteaus because they had a deeper keel.

 

[gertha]

Reguarding price, yes a Swan is more expensive; but my guess in 10 years will still be worth more.
In £ I have been looking at AWB at 10 years old about 100k or a bit less, most need new sails and rigging plus other improvements.
Swan 46 are 1980 to 1990 so a lot older; because of the boats they are the rigging is often good also the sails. Plus the boats are made for off shore so have spin poles and second forestays and other equipment all which will be extra on AWB they come in about 150k . The teak decks are a major problem.

In the grand scheme of an upgrade from my baby AWB, the Swan and AWB are not massive difference in price.
The Swan has far less accommodation; but to buy a boat with the accommodation of a AWB 46 foot in a heavier offshore boat is beyond bank balance.

KellysEye contribution is welcome, the experience of both sorts of boats is most welcome.

It appears that I have 3 votes heavy and none light.
However my modest 30k off shore miles has always been light, so why I am trying to gain input.

Thanks in advance
Simon

 

[Tranona]

You will find most people here prefer heavy displacement boats so that is the advice you will get. However there are many more who are perfectly happy with AWBs for ocean cruising - prepared to accept that they can be uncomfortable in more testing conditions. This is inevitable as sales of new heavy displacement boats have dropped to very small numbers so inevitably if that is your preference your choice becomes limited to old(er) boats - as you are discovering.

I suppose the people who are happy with AWBs are fully aware of their limitations and either arrange their cruising such that they avoid heavier weather as much as possible or accept for a very small %age of a passage they may be uncomfortable. in return they get the benefits of better living when not sailing. better accommodation, more space and likely a bigger boat than they could otherwise afford.

While the Swan is a far more capable boat, do not fall into the trap of thinking that because it was higher quality when new it will be better at 30 years old than an AWB at 10. Such boats are money pits. Not only because they were expensive to build and equip when new, but refit and sourcing parts will inevitably be expensive - and not just the teak decks! Such boats have a habit of being used hard - that is why people usually buy them, and often neglected when they get to the 3rd or 4th owner who is unlikely to be as rich as the first! So tread carefully as even a £150k boat could easily swallow a third more for a refit.

 

[KellysEye]

>I suppose the people who are happy with AWBs are fully aware of their limitations and either arrange their cruising such that they avoid heavier weather as much as possible or accept for a very small %age of a passage they may be uncomfortable. i

Bear in mind on a long passage, such as a 2,800nm Atlantic crossing you have to take what weather comes along. In 2004 we had light winds and were praying for squalls to get our speed up which we got. In 2007 we were on the ARC finish line and the boats had 35 knots gusting 50 knots, they arrived with broken booms, booms torn off, broken carbon spinnaker poles, broken rigging and broken rudders all jury rigged. A Canadian boat we knew well arrived under staysail their spinnaker, genoa and main had torn so badly they couldn't repair them.

>While the Swan is a far more capable boat, do not fall into the trap of thinking that because it was higher quality when new it will be better at 30 years old than an AWB at 10.

Swans are built to a much higher quality than an AWB that's why they are more expensive, they don't lose quality. The build quality of AWB's hasn't changed which is why they are still cheaper.

 

[geem]

I suppose the people who are happy with AWBs are fully aware of their limitations and either arrange their cruising such that they avoid heavier weather as much as possible or accept for a very small %age of a passage they may be uncomfortable. in return they get the benefits of better living when not sailing. better accommodation, more space and likely a bigger boat than they could otherwise afford.

While the Swan is a far more capable boat, do not fall into the trap of thinking that because it was higher quality when new it will be better at 30 years old than an AWB at 10. Such boats are money pits. Not only because they were expensive to build and equip when new, but refit and sourcing parts will inevitably be expensive - and not just the teak decks! Such boats have a habit of being used hard - that is why people usually buy them, and often neglected when they get to the 3rd or 4th owner who is unlikely to be as rich as the first! So tread carefully as even a £150k boat could easily swallow a third more for a refit.[/QUOTE]

I dont know anybody who goes looking for heavy weather whether they have an AWB of heavy displacement boat. If you sail longer distances the chance of hitting unforecast weather increases. If you ocean sail, heavy weather is inevitable at some point.
What evidence do you have that a high qulity boat will be in poor shape because of the way they might have been used. This is pure conjecture. If this is the case, what condition might we expect of an AWB after its crossed the Atlantic twice? Since the high quility heavy displacement boat is by definition designed for the job and you arent going to admit that an AWB crossing oceans is going to fall apart then is it not possible that the qulity boat will still be in good condition after many years of use assuming reasonable maintenance?
In my experience one of the biggest costs for any boat will be teak deck replacement. The price wont change much per sq metre if its a ten year old Bavaria or a 30 year old Swan unless wet balsa core is involved

 

[Tranona]

On the evidence of the boats I have looked at, the tales of woe here of what people have found buying older so called quality boats, the size of the refit bills quoted when people are selling such boats.

Lots of things happen to boats over 30 year's use and these boats were never built with ease of maintenance in mind.

Of course one can find boats in good condition that have been well maintained and regularly updated - but those are boats that owners tend to keep, whereas often what prompts a sale is the recognition that the boat needs a lot of work and money to get it up to scratch.

So the warning is to go in with eyes open and not believe that just because a boat was expensive and desirable 30 years ago it is still a good buy.

BTW relatively few AWBs have teak decks and it is perhaps better to remove them fair the deck and paint. This has less effect on the value whereas a Swan or an HR almost has to have a teak deck if you want to get a good price for it. Also their decks are much more difficult to replace than many AWB decks which are just glued on panels with no fastenings or fittings going through them.

 

[ifoxwell]

Dont forget that for any cruise worth its name you will be spending much more of your time on board at anchor, or in a marina etc than you will spend sailing... so dont chose the boat based solely on its heavy weather sailing characteristics. The boat needs to be capable obviously but there is so much more to cruising than just sailing

 

[Fr J Hackett]

My blue water sailing is limited to a light weight German 37 foot yacht.
We have only sailed 2 Atlantic circits together, plus a few other sails in 10 years.

I am now thinking of moving to a bigger boat, a round world is the next step up.

My short list is between a heavier boat , probably Swan 46 and a lighter option poss a Bene 473

I have always enjoyed making 5 knots in 4 knots of wind, and this the Swan will presumably fail on; but when we spend 2 days in a force 8 the light weight is hard work.

I am looking for input from anyone who has sailed in both a leightweight and a heavy weight, is there a better option.


Simon

You might find this interesting:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f2/motion-comfort-ratio-114288.html

 

[DoubleEnder]

You might find this interesting:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f2/motion-comfort-ratio-114288.html

Some of the really comfortable ones on that list are very very slow

 

[gertha]

Again I welcome all input on this thread,.
What I am looking for is people with experience sailing both a lightweight AWB and also a heavier older boat.
My limited 30k off shore is insignificant to the forumiest (how do you spell it) with many 10s of thousands entries on this forum.
Simon

 

[Tranona]

Not sure getting the experiences of others helps, even if they have sailed both types. They may either be ambivalent about them or will have established firm views one way or the other depending on which they feel happier with. Can't see how knowing that helps you.

You clearly know the differences, have a lot of experience so surely you should be able to make up your own mind which you would prefer for your own sailing plans.

There are clearly many people who are happy with both types (and catamarans!), but there is clearly a major trend towards modern lighter weight boats. This is because the majority of new boats built in the last 20 years or so have been of this type and the supply of good boats of the older type will inevitably shrink in the future.

Personally if I was wedded to the more traditional heavier displacement boats I would be looking a 1990s Oyster - either a 406 or a 435 which are both well in your price range. However they are mostly getting very tired now because many have been round the block at least once and often more than that with successive owners. They are not particularly sharp performers and a bit pokey down below compared with modern boats. That is the price you pay for the good rating on Brewer's comfort measure.

There is no easy answer, and certainly nobody else can make the decision for you. It is really no different from any other consumer choice. Draw up your list of priorities and assess what is available against those. Inevitably there will be compromises, either because there is no perfect boat or more likely some of your priorities may be mutually exclusive.

 

[Heckler]

Again I welcome all input on this thread,.
What I am looking for is people with experience sailing both a lightweight AWB and also a heavier older boat.
My limited 30k off shore is insignificant to the forumiest (how do you spell it) with many 10s of thousands entries on this forum.
Simon

Go and watch Delos latest episode on Youtube, woo! serious stuff in a serious boat. Mind you my little Bene is quite good in rough stuff!
Stu

 

[duncan99210]

When we were in the market for a liveaboard, we started off looking at the 'quality' end of the spectrum. Heavier built boats, often centre cockpit designs, lots of handholds down below and so on. They were nearly all 20-30 years old and it showed. Poor cosmetic condition, outdated electronics, questionable standing and running rigging, ancient engines and so on.

We then looked at more recent 'budget' boats, which tended to be in better condition, naturally had more up to date electronics and so on. In the end, it was a combination money and time decision. We needed a boat that was more or less ready to go and that wouldn't strip out our reserves fixing it up, so we ended up with a modern Bavaria. She's worked well for us and I don't regret having gone down that route.
On the other hand, if we'd had a few years in which to work on a boat whilst still bringing in a decent salary, I might have gone down the older boat but loads of work route. But probably not: life's too short not to be actually on the water having fun.

 

[RupertW]

There is an odd reluctance from the large majority of people cruising with AWBs to post yet again on this, but I would at least consider the vast majority of the time you will be stepping off at the stern, swimming and using the dinghy and just living on board in a hot climate. At all those times a modern boat will be much better.

The question then is how much you buy the idea that heavy old boats are slow or modern lighter ones always slam or feel worse in bad weather. My personal experience is that an AWB needs to be sailed differently to an older quality boat but not that it's worse in most bad weather or long distance sails.

 

[geem]

There is an odd reluctance from the large majority of people cruising with AWBs to post yet again on this, but I would at least consider the vast majority of the time you will be stepping off at the stern, swimming and using the dinghy and just living on board in a hot climate. At all those times a modern boat will be much better.

The question then is how much you buy the idea that heavy old boats are slow or modern lighter ones always slam or feel worse in bad weather. My personal experience is that an AWB needs to be sailed differently to an older quality boat but not that it's worse in most bad weather or long distance sails.

Out here in the Caribbean where there are old designs and modern AWBs being used as liveaboards you dont see the AWBs sailing between the island and leaving the older boats behind. There is certainly no difference in speed when both types of boat have been loaded up with all the liveaboard essentials. We weigh in at 19t (theoretical weight is 14.5t) when we lift out (44ft over the deck) but we are still floating on our marks. This cant be said for lots of liveaboard AWBs that we come across.
We had been sailing in company with a Jen 43 a couple of weeks ago in boisterous conditions with the wind well forward of the beam. Over 28 miles they were 100metres ahead of us but we had completely different trips. We sailed on autopilot all the way and never griped up in a gust or squall. The Jen griped up repeatedly, they hand steered and had a completely different percieved trip than we had. They complained about the sea state. We didnt reckognise the weather that they had sailed through although we were 100 metres apart for most of it. They wernt novices having sailed across the Atlantic from the Med. We will keep with a comfortable old design and accept that we wont have any stories to share about how bad the conditions were...........

 

[RupertW]

Out here in the Caribbean where there are old designs and modern AWBs being used as liveaboards you dont see the AWBs sailing between the island and leaving the older boats behind. There is certainly no difference in speed when both types of boat have been loaded up with all the liveaboard essentials. We weigh in at 19t (theoretical weight is 14.5t) when we lift out (44ft over the deck) but we are still floating on our marks. This cant be said for lots of liveaboard AWBs that we come across.
We had been sailing in company with a Jen 43 a couple of weeks ago in boisterous conditions with the wind well forward of the beam. Over 28 miles they were 100metres ahead of us but we had completely different trips. We sailed on autopilot all the way and never griped up in a gust or squall. The Jen griped up repeatedly, they hand steered and had a completely different percieved trip than we had. They complained about the sea state. We didnt reckognise the weather that they had sailed through although we were 100 metres apart for most of it. They wernt novices having sailed across the Atlantic from the Med. We will keep with a comfortable old design and accept that we wont have any stories to share about how bad the conditions were...........

I get it in the Caribbean - for sailing at least if not liveability (ie nearly all of the time) as it's lighter wind sailing that will fail to move a floating brick but it's the griping and hand steering story that I fully believe and also totally exasperates me as newer boats can't be sailed the same way. Where there are not reliable stronger winds in places like the Med then even a well loaded AWB can move ahead with the right sails up.

It would have been heresy for me to have full jib and double reefed main when close reaching, or jib/asymmetric alone when wind only just astern but sail that way (and other techniques) in a fat sterned boat and all steering and griping issues diminish or disappear as you sail flatter and a lot faster. The autohelm copes and uses so much less juice. But it took me years to finally decide to sail my AWB completely differently to a traditional boat.