Time for another Bav. thread; already

Bosun Higgs said:
Well the Bav 32 has a better PY handicap that the Contessa 32 which suggests that the stretchy rigging isnt a cop out at all. With good rigging the Bav will sail better.
Click to expand...

Contessa 32's have been raced seriously for a long time so people know how to get the best out of them.
They are basically dog slow around a course. But they do keep going in a breeze.
Many smaller cruiser racers (e.g Impala 28) have to give them serious amounts of time.
I'm not knocking them as racers, you can have great tactical racing against other Co32's, and some people enjoy that. And you don't need a lot of fat on the rail to be competitive.
As cruisers they are fine for two imho.
As serious offshore boats, they are good for their size. Unless it's an old one with worn out gear that lets you down (from bitter experience).

Handicap racing only works well between fairly similar boats.
I'm sure a well set up Bav32 would do OK in club racing, but would be more in its element as a caravan and sailing school boat, where I'm sure they will sell well.

I would prefer an X332 to either. I reckon it would outdo both at their own game except the Bav for vfm?
 
doug748 said:
Interesting, I have been looking at the Stix factor - much against my better judgement, I have always ignored it in boat reviews in the past.
It seems to me that downflooding angle (as it manifests itself in the Stix calculation) may discriminate in favour of lightly ballasted, beamy, deep hulled vessels to the detriment of more traditional designs. Downflooding is of greater concern than merely getting seawater on your carpets and any water below will adversly affect stability; but then again it is of greater moment (yep, quiteliterally as they say on the radio) to a wide boat than a narrow one.
I would not go so far as to say that manufacturers, yacht designers and our blessed European Government have gerrymandered this factor but it is jolly convienient.
Some good background here:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/stability/sailing-boats-stability-stix-old-ratios-13569.html

Sorry, this should probably be a new thread.
Click to expand...

I dont think it is as straight forward as freeboard alone, the Bav will have a damned sight more freeboard than the Etap, that is for sure, but the Bav has a lower Stix than the CO32. I'm sorry I do not know all the answers when it comes to Stix measurements, but I am as equally surprised as I suspect you are that a boat with a BR of 48% has a Stix of 32, sort of contradictory.
 
Ubergeekian said:
OK, I admit it. I have no idea what a Stix rating is. Google offers no relief. Can someone enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Well said 'Uber geek' I think there were 5 other acronyms or nicknames for things. Why don't posters use the correct terms and not abbreviations.

Threads would be much improved and communication might take place, even with those who did not already know the answer!

Mike
 
For an explanation of Stix look here:

http://www.blur.se/images/irc-stix-2008.pdf

Found this on Sail Net:

"STIX

STIX, which scores a boats stability on a scale of 1 to 100, uses a boats length as it’s prime factor adjusting this by seven other factors including assessment of a boat’s

• ability to withstand a capsize by considering the area under it’s GZ curve,
• recovery from inversion by looking at it’s AVS and mass,
• recovery from knockdown by overcoming water in the sails,
• displacement-length factor giving credit for a heavy displacement for a given length,
• beam-displacement factor recognizing problems associated with topside flare and excessive beam,
• wind moment representing the risk of flooding due to a gust and
• the risk of downflooding in a broach or knockdown.
STIX is arguably the most sophisticated stability screening tool yet available. The required RCD* STIX limits which are applied in addition to the above limits on mass and AVS are:-

Category A equal to or greater than 32"
 
dmmbruce said:
Well said 'Uber geek' I think there were 5 other acronyms or nicknames for things. Why don't posters use the correct terms and not abbreviations.

Threads would be much improved and communication might take place, even with those who did not already know the answer!

Mike
Click to expand...

From the link above:

Q: What is STIX?
A: It is the STability IndeX derived by the International Standard for the stability and
buoyancy of boats, ISO 12217-2. STIX is calculated from the physical characteristics of
each boat and is a number generally in the range 5 to 50. In a similar manner to the
SSSN system, a higher value suggests greater seaworthiness.

Please dont ask what sssn is, you have Google I'm sure.
 
Ubergeekian said:
OK, I admit it. I have no idea what a Stix rating is. Google offers no relief. Can someone enlighten me?
Click to expand...

An SSS Base Value, specific to that particular boat, is printed on each boat's IRC certificate issued by the IRC Rating Authority. A high value indicates that the system evaluates a boat as being more seaworthy.

The Base Value for the hull, rig and appendages is computed from the boat's dimensions and rated parameters. It is the product of several factors, each representing a different safety related feature. A Base Size factor, calculated from the boat's principal dimensions, is modified by each of the other specific factors to take account of variations from the norm. The modifying factors are: displacement/length, beam/displacement, sail area/displacement, beam/length, self righting, rig, keel, engine, and dayboat.

STIX and IRC STIX
When the data is available, either as STIX assessed by a notified body or as IRC STIX calculated by the IRC Rating Authority following submission of data by a boat’s owner, STIX and AVS will be printed on each boat’s IRC certificate. In a similar manner to SSS, STIX or IRC STIX is a number representing the perceived 'seaworthiness' of the design, with again a higher value reflecting a more 'seaworthy' boat.

Each boat's STIX or IRC STIX is calculated in accordance with ISO 12217 Part 2 by the combination of factors related to dynamic stability, inversion recovery, knockdown recovery, displacement-length, beam-displacement, wind moment and downflooding, using the following data and methods.

IRC STIX Numbers are calculated using declared or measured IRC data. Each boat shall have its stability assessed in accordance with IRC Rating Authority procedures or by an approved alternative method except that boats of approved one-design classes may use class standard stability data and true sisterships of designs already assessed may make use of sistership data. In such cases, stability data may be reduced. Subject to approval by the IRC Rating Authority, a lines plan from any reasonable source may be used for the calculation of hydrostatic data. Owners are responsible for the supply of righting moment data from a source acceptable to the IRC Rating Authority in the form required by ISO 12217, Part 2, Paragraph 6. In addition to IRC STIX, certificates will show the angle of vanishing stability as calculated by the boat’s designer or other qualified person.


If you want more go to www.ircrating.org/en/technical-a-certification/sssn-a-stix.html.
 
jonjo4 said:
But YM's greying editorial team is just a reflection of the age band where early retirement, excess wealth and free time is clustered in the UK.

I think it more likely the editorial team was chosen for reasons other than their ages - the disconnect with the aspiring sector of boat ownership, the future market, is clearly missing in any case!

Now unusually on this point I feel compelled to defend YM. What we are debating here is an extensive article based on YM's new scientific review process. Isn't this what you are praising in the German mag?
Click to expand...

New scientific process? My point is that YM has isolated the wrong descriptors. So it has rated boats from different eras to no real purpose. Does the editor believe readers need enlightenment as to the differences between design parameters applying to the market of the 1970's and today? What I want to see is independent technical assessment of boats and equipment - not a poll of readers' opinions - that's lazy journalism. As I say, it can be done but not if your staff is largely composed of advertisment peddlers.

PWG
 
When I am able to post I will tell you all how good a Bavaria is the 55 that we have has crossed the pond both ways in the 5months that we have had her without a problem

lynne
 
Just looked at the first and last 3 or 4 on this thread and I'm gob smacked.
Don't think I'll bother with Scuttlebutt any more.
You people really should get out more.
 
PeterGibbs said:
Does the editor believe readers need enlightenment as to the differences between design parameters applying to the market of the 1970's and today?
Click to expand...
They don't just "believe" they must know so following any level of analysis of the vociferous opinions offered on the classic/AWB debate here on YBW.com over the years.

PeterGibbs said:
As I say, it can be done but not if your staff is largely composed of advertisment peddlers.
Click to expand...
Ooo I don't think that is the case, manufacturers deliver what they know we want and will sell, magazines review and test what is available in the market. Simples.
 
CaptainCava said:
Just looked at the first and last 3 or 4 on this thread and I'm gob smacked.
Don't think I'll bother with Scuttlebutt any more.
You people really should get out more.
Click to expand...

Are you objecting to the serious discussion on the use of measures to grade "seaworthiness"?

This is the underlying issue of all these debates about "old" vs "modern" yacht design - how can a boat like the Bav 32 be considered suitable for "ocean" work when it does not meet many peoples' perception of what a good seaworthy boat (like a Contessa 32 perhaps) should be.

The measures used in the RCD for stability are a serious attempt at quantifying the characteristics that are deemed desirable for yachts capable of making "ocean" passages where they can expect to meet particular weather conditions. It is meant to establish minimum standards and then provide a basis for comparisons.

For all its faults and the anomolies it reveals it does at least focus attention on areas of design that affect stability that should help potenial purchasers make their own decisions about what boat to buy.
 
1bobt said:
I think you have to accept that Britain, is not a Bavaria target market.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite.

Along the northern coast of the continent we are regarded as a nation of Bavaria lovers. Before its demise Opal was Bavaria's largest national agent or so I recall.
 
Plastic covered chipboard? Jeanneau use it on the back of the companion way steps. Result? It looks like wood except very close up and on my 12 year boat still looks like new. Not something you would say about varnished wood in this high-wear area.

Excessively fat bottoms? I love my wide cockpit. On a typical British summer cruise where every second day involves being tied to a mooring while a gale rages outside the cockpit space comes into its own. The fact that the boat rounds up in gusts is easily accommodated by putting the main down the track and reefing early. It is all "horses for courses".

The contrast between Bavaria and Contessa? The numerical scores cannot be taken seriously since there is an "aggregation problem" in that a loss of 5 marks for a small chart table cannot be taken as equal to the 5 marks for "construction method". The marks within categories can be compared (e.g. the Contessa has a better chart table) but the aggregates are meaningless.

However, as a bit of fun to stir up this community it seems to have worked a treat.
 
Plastic covered chipboard? Jeanneau use it on the back of the companion way steps. Result? It looks like wood except very close up and on my 12 year boat still looks like new. Not something you would say about varnished wood in this high-wear area.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the new ones? They use the MFI furniture technique throughout - the "grain" goes different ways on the different sides and (IMHO) it looks tacky. It makes it painfully obvious that it isn't wood - and this is on high visibility items like doors and cabinets that you'll give more than 1/2 a glance too. This isn't just Jen - this is Ben too ... not sure if Bav have followed suit yet though. Bav had resorted to minimal fixings on their door frame trims - so much so that you could bend out the middle and would soon snap if caught on a kitbag ... it didn't look like a one off either as it was on all the door frames on the particular vessel we looked at (2 years ago at SIBS).

I don't know the cost difference between chipboard/plastic and plywood/veneer - but it can't be huge and personally I'd rather pay a grand or 2 more for the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top