pvb
Well-Known Member
They are bolted through the grid usually.
What they don't tell you about production boats
- Thread starter geem
- Start date
They are bolted through the grid usually.
wully1
Well-Known Member
Its a mythical condition that saves boat purchasers money, costs sellers even more money and makes boat yards yet more money than the sun of sellers and buyers side of the deal...
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Nothing about what I said is incorrect. Furthermore, I have absolutely no attachment to any particular brand or type of hull/keel. I am interested in the technical aspect of things.
I have looked at various examples of calculations to determine the surviveability of a grounding. The parametres are a question of physics; whether it all holds together is a question of engineering. If it doesn't, then either the parametres were wrong or the engineering was faulty or, of course, the boat was poorly built.
Assumed speed for such calculations is hull speed. Displacement is much more difficult to determine, as it varies greatly with use by owner. Variants are then covered by "safety factors".
A short, deep fin is, in this respect, not a favourable geometry.
I do not give a toss about hull thickness, as long a it is adequate.
Weight alone is not an indication of a strongly built boat. My (current) brand was designed for home completion and some of these amateur fitted examples are grossly overweight while not adding one iota to their strength.
Ground contact is a normal part of cruising; it happens, or as some grizzled salt once told me: "if you're not hitting now and then you're not really cruising."
We hit something hard once, in the dredged channel between Fehmarn and Heiligenhafen (Baltic), while motoring at speed in a 30t lifting keel cutter. It stopped her dead. The sound of the impact is not something I shall ever forget as I went flying across the salon. There was some damage to the leading edge of the keel, but neither the hull nor the keel trunk or lifting mechanism was compromised in any way.
I also inspected a 50 year-old Robert Clark design that had some extraordinarily deep and long dents in in the keel from the various hard hits throughout it's career; I subsequently sailed her across the Pacific and back.
It would seem to me that some engineering and design solutions are better suited to surviving the impact of an accidental grounding.
Keith 66
Well-Known Member
I used to do a lot of grp repairs, some pretty massive. Bonding in of grid strengtheners has been used in the industry for donkeys years.
We did a Sigma 38 that was built the same way, I have repaired two Ufo 31's that were very similar & a few modern ones as well.
Keels have been detaching from these for a long time. Its great & stiff as long as it stays stuck but you are relying completely on that thin layer of bonding paste. Some will have the flange further held down with grp tabbing but most of the time this is there as a repair.
We did a Sigma 38 that was built the same way, I have repaired two Ufo 31's that were very similar & a few modern ones as well.
Keels have been detaching from these for a long time. Its great & stiff as long as it stays stuck but you are relying completely on that thin layer of bonding paste. Some will have the flange further held down with grp tabbing but most of the time this is there as a repair.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Having done some ocean sailing myself, I do have to wonder how many have managed to run aground mid Atlantic. In my experience the ocean's edges tend to be much more dangerous.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Sweeping statements like this are not helpful.
While it may be true in some parts of the world - the Baltic and some parts of the UK, other popular sailing areas it is not. One of these is the Mediterranean which is mostly non tidal and water is generally deep right up to the shore - so if you are hitting the ground then you are doing something wrong. This area is the biggest single market for European yacht builders, so it is not surprising that their boats take advantage of the benefits of deep high aspect ratio fin keels. on the other hand boats designed in the Baltic tend to have longer shallower keels with structures that behave better when a rock is hit. For a long time I owned a Maurice Griffiths boat which unsurprisingly is excellent for Poole Harbour and the East Coast where MG lived and worked. The much loved (by some on here) IPs are built in Florida where cruising is in the shallow waters of the Keys and Bahamas - hence their long shallow keels. A dominant style of boats for the wealthy US East Coast yottie who liked to spend the winter down south was a long keel centreboarder with a ketch or yawl rig to keep the air draft down to use the ICW. Alden and S&S for example designed many superb boats in this style.
So its horses for courses. If you want to cruise in parts of the world where the water is thin, or there are hard lumps close to the surface then a Hanse may not be for you. But for the rest of the world enjoy the benefits of the fin keel. There are of course compromise boats such as my Bavaria which I ordered with the shallow keel - at 1.5m much the same as most UK built MABs of similar size (I wonder why so shallow?) rather than the standard 1.95. The shallower draft opens up areas where I want to sail that would be marginal with the deep keel. Of course it does not sail as crisply but that is a price I am prepared to pay.
ip485
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with weight, you are deluding yourself if you think it has, and nothing to do with my boat is the best, because it isnt.
The reason I said Bavaria's were flimsy (albeit a little tongue in cheek) is exactly because of the original video. Time is not taken to bond the components properly into the structure, and the structure is not there in the same way to support the stiffness of the interior components.
Take just one test. Sail a well used Bavaria and an IP (and some other makes) both vessels having been well used in a good blow with some sea, and the Bavaria will creeek and grown. You can feel everything is on the move. I can guaratee you this will be the case, I have had plenty of experience and many people who have commented in the IP that there are just no creeks or groans. You need to do it, to know, so unless you have you cant make a comparison.
I dont say this because I own an IP, it is just the way it is.
Nothing wrong with Bavaria's but the construction is to a cost, and cannot be compared with an IP or a number of other similar yachts and there is nothing wrong in this, it is one of the reasons why Bavaria's are cheap, and there is nothing wrong in that either.
People in the know who fit out these boats for a living with a/c or heating ducts or whatever will tell you the same without exception, if only because they know the job will take three times as long and they will need more powerful cutters and power tools. They will tell you to a person and without exception.
It is simply the way it is and in no way to run down Bavaria's or any other production yachts. As the video poster makes clear, most yachts use the same parts out of the part bin and with a few exceptions there isnt a vast difference in the cost profile of the fittings. The extra cost is in the build of the hull (I dont mean its raw thickness) and in the material used for the woodcraft, and to a lesser extent in some slightly better components and less optional items. Wood craft is also hugelu expensive and time consuming. Veneer and poor quality ply is cheap, and unfortunately it will quickly show all the signs of use. It is like a kitchen. If you buy solid cabinetry or very good quality carcasses, it will cost you significantly more but it will look good for almost ever. The less expensive will not.
The best lesson I had was with sofas. The high street wharehouse produce so very good looking sofas and chairs and are very price competitive. They are a different product from other sofas, but the difference is all underneath and only when you see the frame do you realise.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That happens with the more common J&J design Bavarias from the late 1990s to about 2010 and many other production boats of the period because they were designed with the upper parts of bulkheads in slots in the deck and headlinings filled with flexible sealer. To cope with the movement the door frames float in the bulkheads. From time to time the ply can touch another piece of the structure as the boat flexes and makes a noise. A bit unpleasant to hear and often easily cured by identifying where it is happening and and relieving the pressure. This is not an indicator of "flimsiness". These boats are between 10 and 30 years old and many have had a hard life as sailing school or charter boats and owners will tell you that they stand up well and easily sell in the secondhand market.
Later boats designed by Farr are built on different principles and do not creak at all. The same distinction can be drawn between early Hanses and the current design boats.
TernVI
Well-Known Member
Island Packets are not that heavy, many of them just look heavy because they are that dreadful Morris Marina Hearing-Aid-Beige colour.
pvb
Well-Known Member
I'd second that; my Farr-designed Cruiser 37 doesn't creak, or groan, or leak. In contrast, my previous boat (Hallberg-Rassy) creaked awfully.
ip485
Well-Known Member
They sell , because you get a lot of boat for the price, and nothing wrong with that. On the whole they are very tired when they come to change hands and the interiors especially show their age.
In my experience later production boats (I am not especially referring to Bavarias) are little different. Of course during their early life they present well - after all they have to, to sell. The test in not in the first flush of their life, but as they age. In fact the manufactureres, just as with the high street settee makers, have got very good at producing a product that looks wonderful in the showroom. Yachts are no different. Tell Bavaria to produce the same yacht but spend another 30% on it and I have no doubt they would produce a superb product, but it isnt their market, their market they have decided is cost effective volume production because they reckon there is more profit in it. It isnt rocket science.
I know we are all biased but there is a certain reality to this. A Bavaria (if we are going to use this example) is half the price of a top end yacht of the same size. Either all the punters are being cooned, or their is a reason. Now I accept in one sense as the price goes up, you realtively get less for your money and you pay more for a name, but still not to the extent that would be required.
It is this simple. Compare a Porsche with a Ford, it is the same principle. Both get you from A to B perfectly well, both are perfectly safe, but the Ford will seem tired after ten years, the suspension will be just that more spongy, the whole chasis will flex a bit more, the fabric will wear less well, and again there is an obvious reason why this should be so.
I know I will never convince some, and I understand this, as it is a frequent discussion on here, but it is reality. If it wasnt we would all buy Fords.
PS and I know there will be those who see this as biased and will argue and support the yacht they own, so Bavaria owners will obvioulsy report they are the best thing since sliced bread so it will never be a sentitment that finds widespread support, but it doenst change the facts, and, more to the point, doesnt make Bavarias a bad yacht, rather a product that is very well pitched at the market Bavaria see as theirs, and good for them.
Last edited:
matt1
Well-Known Member
Welcome back Tranona - can’t recall how many years you have been absent now.... but as you can tell it’s still the same old debate 
With the same misinformation - yawn
With the same misinformation - yawnDaydream believer
Well-Known Member
Well I would respectfully remind you of post #9 in which you wrote:-
[/QUOTE]
wully1 said:
“How thick the hull is “ 10 mil......
“Glued together with brittle putty..”
Nah....
[/QUOTE]
Now, only being of average IQ
I took that to mean that you felt that 10mm was not suitable.Could it simply be that you memory is failing? & you forgot what you had written earlier. I do not know
You certainly have been unable to answer the question I posed.
But let's see if we can discuss the matter without resorting to insult shall we?-- Or is it that having lost the discussion, that is your only response
Never mind, It may be better to move on, before the thread degenerates further
ip485
Well-Known Member
I agree better to move on. The trouble is these discussion become very centric on individual's yachts or resistance to the idea that price has any relationship to the end quality of the build. It also degenerates into my yacht is prettier, or sails better or whatever.
As I have said numerous times there are plenty of good yachts at all the price points, but unless someone has a really convincing argument for where an extra £400K goes into a 50 foot yacht between the bottom and the top of the market then either we are all being cooned and Bavaria's are the only game in town, or there is a market that spans the range of yachts and yacht prices such that there is a reason to price some more than others over and beyond just a name, fashion, or a few bits of extra kit that in reality has little impact on the overall price.
As I have said numerous times there are plenty of good yachts at all the price points, but unless someone has a really convincing argument for where an extra £400K goes into a 50 foot yacht between the bottom and the top of the market then either we are all being cooned and Bavaria's are the only game in town, or there is a market that spans the range of yachts and yacht prices such that there is a reason to price some more than others over and beyond just a name, fashion, or a few bits of extra kit that in reality has little impact on the overall price.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
It would seem that I cast my horizons a little further and, in view that the original vlogger found the bottom in the Baltic, one could argue that my contested statement was rather more accurate than sweeping.
Perhaps I am a poor navigator; I have never made any particular claims as to my abilities. We have managed to bounce nastily in the Dutch Waddenzee and dragged our tail through all sorts of muddy bottoms in various locations along Europe's northern coasts and we have touched down unpleasantly hard, traveling along rivers. We also "found" a rock going into Ploumanch' in Britanny and I claim the rights to naming it after our proud ship "wot helped us in the discovery".
I tread carefully in places like the Baltic, as I'm sure that the ducks standing on the water's surface and in the open, close to the fairway in the Nyborgsund did not have some rare form of Jesus syndrome, but something of a rather more solid footing. That said, I did find something hard and vicious on a previous trip with a different boat.
During a three month stint in the Med I, admittedly, did not hit bottom, just as I treated the coral reefs encountered beyond with the greatest respect. Still, when you cruise certain areas, such as Central America and where the chart you're using assures you that this particular bay was thoroughly surveyed by HMS Ironbottom in 1750, you will, at some point, have a close encounter with the sea bed.
I very much doubt that Europe's yachting industry builds special "tank bottom" boats for use in the Baltic; shallower draft, perhaps. At which point we are back to the technical benefits and physics of a longer keel root, which is a technical question and what I thought this whole discussion was originally about.
Sadly, what could have been a good discussion on technical merits turns into a slinging match between the "modern boat" (whatever that may be) enthusiasts who appear as thin-skinned as their vessels and the stalwart supporters of Noah's ark who claim their model could be dragged across the Americas without the benefit of wheels and reach the Pacific with nary a scratch.
On that note; by all accounts the Arc did ground out on Mt. Ararat; apparently she never managed to get off - overloaded and little or no nautical experience at the helm, according to the subsequent inquiry.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Read that statement again - "if you are not hitting you are not cruising" - "ground contact is normal". Seems pretty sweeping to me.
What you have now done is confirm what I said about it being a sweeping statement by giving exactly the same type of examples to show that it depends on where you sail. So you did not hit anything in the Med but did in the shallow waters of the Netherlands - just as I touch bottom in parts of Poole harbour and Newtown River and dry out against the quay in Keyhaven and in my youth spent happy hours high and dry in the Walton backwaters. However never touched the bottom in 10 years in the Med, but may well have done if my plan to come back through the Canal du MIdi had come to fruition.
No, boat builders do not make special boats for the Baltic. For them it is a small market (unlike the home producers who do tailor their offerings to their major market) and they rely on the intelligence of potential buyers to decide whether a deep draft, fin keel boat is suitable for them. Seems many do they collectively sell lots of boats there.
There is little to debate about the technical issues as it is common knowledge that a deep high aspect ratio keel does not like hitting something solid, particularly as is most likely toward the bottom. Such keels are common on modern boats , but "modern" in that sense starts more than 40 years ago and includes many old favourites such as Sigmas that are very prone to structural damage from grounding. But of course the fact that they were intensively raced in waters that are not only "thin", but have hard lumps often just where the racer wants to go to cheat or take advantage of the tide.
What started this thread was a video that centred on the design and construction of the structure to which the keel is bolted - not the keel itself, nor even the direct attachment. This is a legitimate cause for concern, but builders do not hide it, in fact the construction method features prominently in the builder's publicity (as it does in other builders who produce videos of boats in build). But as others have pointed out the method of absorbing the forces is really no different from that used in cars as anybody who has had a little bump will discover when they see the extent of the repairs required. There are no doubt many happy owners of boats built in this way, including in the Baltic and other high risk areas who avoid grounding and never worry about how the boat is constructed. Here we tend to concentrate on the exceptions and then through argumentation elevate them to the norm. As we have seen we get some who will say this will never happen to my boat as well as others who say all boats like this are doomed.
What you have now done is confirm what I said about it being a sweeping statement by giving exactly the same type of examples to show that it depends on where you sail. So you did not hit anything in the Med but did in the shallow waters of the Netherlands - just as I touch bottom in parts of Poole harbour and Newtown River and dry out against the quay in Keyhaven and in my youth spent happy hours high and dry in the Walton backwaters. However never touched the bottom in 10 years in the Med, but may well have done if my plan to come back through the Canal du MIdi had come to fruition.
No, boat builders do not make special boats for the Baltic. For them it is a small market (unlike the home producers who do tailor their offerings to their major market) and they rely on the intelligence of potential buyers to decide whether a deep draft, fin keel boat is suitable for them. Seems many do they collectively sell lots of boats there.
There is little to debate about the technical issues as it is common knowledge that a deep high aspect ratio keel does not like hitting something solid, particularly as is most likely toward the bottom. Such keels are common on modern boats , but "modern" in that sense starts more than 40 years ago and includes many old favourites such as Sigmas that are very prone to structural damage from grounding. But of course the fact that they were intensively raced in waters that are not only "thin", but have hard lumps often just where the racer wants to go to cheat or take advantage of the tide.
What started this thread was a video that centred on the design and construction of the structure to which the keel is bolted - not the keel itself, nor even the direct attachment. This is a legitimate cause for concern, but builders do not hide it, in fact the construction method features prominently in the builder's publicity (as it does in other builders who produce videos of boats in build). But as others have pointed out the method of absorbing the forces is really no different from that used in cars as anybody who has had a little bump will discover when they see the extent of the repairs required. There are no doubt many happy owners of boats built in this way, including in the Baltic and other high risk areas who avoid grounding and never worry about how the boat is constructed. Here we tend to concentrate on the exceptions and then through argumentation elevate them to the norm. As we have seen we get some who will say this will never happen to my boat as well as others who say all boats like this are doomed.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Almost 3 years. Seems less confrontational now, but probably not on this type of subject where opinions are so entrenched and real facts and experiences get lost.Welcome back Tranona - can’t recall how many years you have been absent now.... but as you can tell it’s still the same old debate
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Well you should. I have bought almost nothing but Fords all my life - and my Morgan has a Ford engine. Every one has given outstanding service over long periods, typically 8 years plus - the last one 15 years. My wife's current Fiesta, her second and preceded by 2 Capris, an Anglia and Cortina is 16 years old. It has been standing outside now for 2 months because of lockdown and started instantly today. Every time I read about the problems people have with premium cars I am glad I buy Fords.
I am sorry I just don't recognise what you see in older Bavarias (or Hanses, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus by implication). You should listen to what buyers and owners have to say. Instructive to spend a couple of hours on owners' sites and see what their issues are. Almost all are related to the hardware that is common to all boats - Volvo engines, Lewmar hatches, Raymarine electronics, Selden masts, Spinlock clutches, electrical and plumbing components and so on. Rarely do you see any significant issues with the "Bavaria" bits - construction, interior fitments, woodwork etc. Of course there are some well known bad bits but far fewer than you would think.
I admire you for you willingness to spend the amount of money required for an IP and I am sure you value what you have but please do not be patronising towards people who make different decisions about how they spend their money by implying that what they buy is not quite right.
I could afford to buy a "quality" boat of a similar size to mine and did indeed consider it. However the gap between them in terms of what you get for the extra money has shrunk by a combination of reduction in "hand built" - not that that is necessarily a good thing , and the improvement in design and quality of construction of mass produced boats. At the same time that the price differential has widened. So what was 20 years ago a 50% premium is now nearly double. Is it any surprise that many of the premium builders in the 30-45' size range are no longer in business.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
To the point: the statement that "if you are not hitting, you are not cruising" is a quote from a very experienced sailor of my acquaintance; I thought I had made that clear. By no means was it intended as an encouragement or instruction to run aground.
At this point I am not sure at all if you've ever sailed in the Baltic or had a chance to see and experience the preferred playground for a number of extremely wealthy and boat-nutty nations. They sail what everyone else does at lot of which is built right there and with more or less the same level of competence.
I doubt very much that the Med is the benign, accident free pool you like to describe, whereas the Baltic, similarly unencumbered by tide, is so much more dangerous. I too speak from experience.
The comparison of a car's crunch zone to a boat's stiffening grid and keel support, strictly does not make any sense. From my knowledge of studying boat design (in an amateur capacity, for sure), and my experience designing and building boats, a boat should be designed to survive an impact to its keel at hull speed.
For some interesting reading I recommend "Principles of Yacht Design" by Larson & Eliasson. In the chapter on keel loads in a grounding, the boat, a forty footer, is assumed to be brought to a full stop from impact in 0.25 sec while traveling at a speed of 8kts. This boat has a short trapezoidal keel design. Nowhere do the authors suggest that it knock the entire keel grid lose, fracture the last floor in way of the keel, crack the hull and damage the galley furniture as a built-in safety crunch zone. A more appropriate comparison, if we must, wrongly I think, turn to the automotive sector, would be to design the passenger safety cage to collapse on impact. Obviously that would seem poor practice. Some design elements, such as a very short root on a deep keel make it more difficult to absorb and render benign the forces of impact.
A boat not able to survive the described impact and without major or catastophic damage is either poorly designed or poorly built. The fact that there may be other designs that do not fair well in this respect is hardly an endorsement.
The argument not to have a grounding or to move to the Med (with certain types of boats) is the same as to advise your wife not to have an accident or to avoid passing orchards or forested areas, so as not wrap the car around a tree.
S**t happens. The more you sail, the further you go, the more likely something could go wrong.
Last edited:
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Thank you chaps, for your excellent dissertations above - I have agreed with many of them, even though some are completely the opposite to others, simply because I admire a good and well structured argument, and I agree that they are all 'right' in their own ways.
