What they don't tell you about production boats

[doug748]

Bobc's deck image is very impressive, as we know it won't save any weight but will make a good stiff deck



Very thin skins save weight, at the expense of poor point impact resistance.

This old footage shows a weight saving layup on a Mumm 36:

I prefer a solid layup.
.

 

[ip485]

To be fair, I don't think IP are at all an aspirational brand, so that doesn't apply to them.

Now, now there was no call for that!

However, aspirational or not, I do agree. Part of why we pay a lot for some things is exactly as you describe. How do you justify a deisgner brand T-shirt being 10 times the cost of some?

Now people arent entirely stupid. Of course they will pay for a name. In some cases they will pay a riduculous amount for a brand, but the makers still cant get away with putting a Bentley logo on a Ford and selling it for the price of a Bentley. They also cant get away with a beautiful interior, but Ford mechanics, even this will be spotted - and you can bet they would, if they could.

If an Oyster for argument sake is double the cost of a Bavaria, I would accept you may only be getting (for argument sake) 50% extra value - and the more the difference, the less the extra value.

There is perhaps a better example. Rustlers could be described as beautiful hand made and top end works of art. They are for some an aspirational brand, so it does apply to them. Never the less they arent as well know as the likes of Oyster or Discovery. For various reasons I prefer the IP, so it was the aspirational brand for me, and very many other loyal followers (undoubtedly more than Rustler have by a long margin) so aspiration may have less to do with it than you suggest. Aspiration possibly attracts those who are also looking for a bit of bling, even though with Oyster and others they get sound functionality, but in the majority of cases in this market I suspect bling hasnt got a great deal to do with it. The determing factor is simply one skippers ideal yacht is different from anothers, and then again, the wise skipper would ideally have two or three depending on the purpose in mind at the time. For sailing oceans, and especially living on board for long periods when not sailing (which in reality is what happens for most people most of the time) the IP had many more ticks that a Rustler, and about the same as an Oyster, but not quite so costly, and as you say, didnt fancy paying for the bling.

Personally I dont like large open cockpits that make the inclusion of a living space (that cant be covered difficult). I do want masses of storage - really and truly as much as possiblem becasue my experience is you can never have too much. I do want to creep into harbours without mcuh water, and not worry too much if I brush the bottom doing so (not that i have!). I do want a baot that is rock sold, will sail itself pretty much when the crew have given up, and most important I want a boat that is over engineered. In short I am prepared to pay for that, and it is a combination I couldnt find on any of the mass produced yachts, I accept because they arent aiming at this market. So, FWIW, it has nothing to do with the cost, but everything to do with the fucntionality. As it happens I dont think many of the mass built yachts consider functionality - again this isnt their market and this is fair enough. I never want to see a coffin bunk again if I can avoid it for example, but this is just me. Two full doubtle cabins, and a very small third double works (for me) I dont want loads of berths for people who will not be spending the night on board - you get the idea.

However the debate started and is all about a discussion of build quality, and , as I said earlier, my experience is you are getting extra build quality at the higher end of the market, and if you werent I really dont believe people whould buy these yachts for aspirational reasons or reasons of bling alone.

If you watch the video and see how the load bearing structure was manufactured into the design on the yacht in the video I dont think it is impressive, and by choice I would just prefer it were done better with somewhat more care and attention to detail. Why it isnt I am not entirely sure because I doubt it would add significantly to the cost, but it does worry me if there is this absence of detail here, is there the same absence throughout - is it a case of if the punter cant see it, dont worry too much?

 

[Bobc]

Bobc's deck image is very impressive, as we know it won't save any weight but will make a good stiff deck
.

That's topside, not deck. The decks consist of an inner moulding, and an outer moulding, glued together. The outer moulding is foam sandwich and the whole lot is about an inch thick.

 

[Bobc]

The English version of the video posted by Jumbleduck might be more useful to people here

 

[rotrax]

For comparison there is also an IP factory tour which shows the build process.

I have seen it on the iphomeport and I expect it is on youtube.

 

[Bobc]

For comparison there is also an IP factory tour which shows the build process.

I have seen it on the iphomeport and I expect it is on youtube.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Now people arent entirely stupid. Of course they will pay for a name. In some cases they will pay a riduculous amount for a brand, but the makers still cant get away with putting a Bentley logo on a Ford and selling it for the price of a Bentley. They also cant get away with a beautiful interior, but Ford mechanics, even this will be spotted - and you can bet they would, if they could.

Up to a point. Ford's attempts with the Jagdeo X-Type weren't a raving success, but Bentley seem to do OK with VW platforms. Do Rolls-Royce not use BMW mechanicals.

If an Oyster for argument sake is double the cost of a Bavaria, I would accept you may only be getting (for argument sake) 50% extra value - and the more the difference, the less the extra value.

The problem there is how we define "value". People - a few people - buy Oysters, so they must in some sense be worth what they cost (cf the T35 which nobody wanted to buy) . Maybe the question is "How cheaply could this boat be sold if it was built in the numbers and with the facilities of Bavaria?"

Personally I dont like large open cockpits that make the inclusion of a living space (that cant be covered difficult). I do want masses of storage - really and truly as much as possiblem becasue my experience is you can never have too much. I do want to creep into harbours without mcuh water, and not worry too much if I brush the bottom doing so (not that i have!). I do want a baot that is rock sold, will sail itself pretty much when the crew have given up, and most important I want a boat that is over engineered.

Sounds as if your priorities are much the same as mine, albeit on a larger scale, The V26 is heavily and beautifully built, has lots of storage and a small cockpit ... and cost about twice as much as a Centaur when new, despite being the same size and weight. I don't see Victoria as an aspirational brand either!

 

[Bobc]

Differences I note between the two build processes on watching both videos:-

1./ IP had 2 men manually spraying the gelcoat whereas Bavaria is fully robotic with no manual labour

2./ Fitting out the deck - I see no robotic routers at IP. Just blokes with saws, drills, and routers.

3./ The shot looking out of the portholes on the IP shows 2 thin laminates (definitely thinner than Bavaria)

4./ Looking at the layup stage, IP seem to be using thick chopstrand and polyester resin. Bavaria use mostly woven rovings and vinylester resin. Looks like there's very little in the way of cloth structure going into the IP. Just old-fashioned "gob in loads of chop and gob".

5./ IP seem to fabricate a lot of metalwork in-house. Bavaria buy it all in. Bavaria use as many common parts as they can, obviously to keep cost down, so all Bavaria models use the same pullpit, the same handrails, etc.

6./ IP dropped the deck onto the empty hull, meaning that they then have to get the engine and all the interior through the main hatch and make it in-place. Bavaria do all of this work before putting the deck on, which means they can build the cabins separately and just drop them in, and they can fit the engine and tankage into an empty open shell, which is much quicker and easier.

So in summary, I would say that IP looks like a typical small boatyard, where they are making a small number of boats in a very traditional and manual way, using craftsmanship rather than technology. Bavaria on the other hand is more like a car plant, using technology and modern manufacturing and assembly methods and techniques to reduce the labour and mess (did you notice how clean the Bavaria factory is compared to the IP shed?). One is a boat builder, the other is a boat manufacturer.

It's a bit like the difference between the Mini plant in Oxford and the Morgan factory in Malvern.

 

[ip485]

The comparison between the two videos is interesting.

You have to be impressed at the automation Bavaria use. You also have to be impressed at all the desks with design, management, marketing and all else personnel. However, you may also think to yourself this all must be paid for. Robots are amazing bits of kit, and there is no substitute if you churning out enough product, but equally they must be amortised over the production and the time they save needs to be significant. It is the age old argument with automation. I dont know the answer, but I am not convinced most yacht manufacturers have the volume to take the best advantage of this, but it would require a better understanding of the economics that I have in my possession. I recall IP's marketing team, and there isnt much of it, and Bill at Southampton with with the yacht and not much else. You could equally argue all the bling that accompanies some companies marketing efforts must also be paid for by you and I if we sign on their dotted line.

 

[ip485]

6./ IP dropped the deck onto the empty hull, meaning that they then have to get the engine and all the interior through the main hatch and make it in-place. Bavaria do all of this work before putting the deck on, which means they can build the cabins separately and just drop them in, and they can fit the engine and tankage into an empty open shell, which is much quicker and easier.

One point I would instantly pick up on is I know which I would prefer. It drives me mad (not just boats) that production is all about manufacturing ease, but no one gives a hoot as to maintenance ease - you just prey you dont need to replace an engine or tank. To be fair there are aspects of IP's and other so called higher end makes that are just as bad I am afraid.

 

[Bobc]

One point I would instantly pick up on is I know which I would prefer. It drives me mad (not just boats) that production is all about manufacturing ease, but no one gives a hoot as to maintenance ease - you just prey you dont need to replace an engine or tank. To be fair there are aspects of IP's and other so called higher end makes that are just as bad I am afraid.

I've replaced the engine, and at a separate time, the fuel tank in my Bavaria. The engine was easy, but to replace the fuel tank, most of the bed base had to be cut out and then refitted using battens or replaced. It was a hell of a faff. So I agree with you totally on that one. Bavarias are definitely put together with a view to ease of manufacture and not ease of repair.

 

[Bobc]

The comparison between the two videos is interesting.

You have to be impressed at the automation Bavaria use. You also have to be impressed at all the desks with design, management, marketing and all else personnel. However, you may also think to yourself this all must be paid for. Robots are amazing bits of kit, and there is no substitute if you churning out enough product, but equally they must be amortised over the production and the time they save needs to be significant. It is the age old argument with automation. I dont know the answer, but I am not convinced most yacht manufacturers have the volume to take the best advantage of this, but it would require a better understanding of the economics that I have in my possession. I recall IP's marketing team, and there isnt much of it, and Bill at Southampton with with the yacht and not much else. You could equally argue all the bling that accompanies some companies marketing efforts must also be paid for by you and I if we sign on their dotted line.

I agree that automation is all about scale. Bavaria's model since before the turn of the century has always been about scale. To put things into some perspective, they are turning out about 10 boats every day! So just thinking about the gelcoat spraying, if you had to spray 10 hulls and 10 decks every day, you'd probably need at least 5 teams of two, and probably 10. So 20 salaries of £25k? £250k/year? I doubt the gelcoat robot cost any more than that, so after a year, you're in clear savings of £250k/year, just on that one single part of the production.

If however, you are making 1 boat a week (that's the sort of volume I expect IP are doing, based on what I saw in the video), then there's not way you could justify the cost of the kit.

As an interesting aside, not sure if you're aware of this, but the company was originally a manufacture of uPVC double glazing products (the owner was into sailing and the boat building bit started with him doing it as a little project on the side). So their DNA is manufacturing rather than boat building.

 

[ip485]

Not to quibble but I think it is 1/2 million, and of course this is just one part of the process. However, you are right, of course you are, with enough volume it makes economic sense, it is all about where that point is crossed. It is surprising if you have watched small manufacturing operations just how efficient small teams can be, so I think we all get enticed into the idea robots bring significant cost savings, but as you have said, it is all about volume and exactly how far you take the process. IP since they are part of the example use CAD cam for most of the woodwork, it isnt highly automated but then again the cabinetry has progressed beyond hand tools. I am definitely not saying they have it right (or wrong) but I am saying that heavily automated production lines can give the impression of significant cost savings, but they should be taken on the round with everything else that goes with them and then the necissity to have the volume.

A good example is Morgan the car company or Caterham. Pretty unautomated production lines, vehicles that relatively speaking are not massively costly compared with the volume manufacuteres, a long list of people waiting delivery, and relatively profitable businesses. The point. Simply that small scale manufacturing is still possible, and volume brings its own challenges, but from the consumers point of view usually a much more consistent product, and better value for money because the manufacturer can work on much smaller volumes. However the second part is only true in a market with true competition and enough price challenge to keep prices down and / or quality up. I do have a concern that even for Bavaria there isnt enough challenge in the market to ensure this happens, but again I dont know.

 

[Bobc]

Not to quibble but I think it is 1/2 million, and of course this is just one part of the process. However, you are right, of course you are, with enough volume it makes economic sense, it is all about where that point is crossed. It is surprising if you have watched small manufacturing operations just how efficient small teams can be, so I think we all get enticed into the idea robots bring significant cost savings, but as you have said, it is all about volume and exactly how far you take the process. IP since they are part of the example use CAD cam for most of the woodwork, it isnt highly automated but then again the cabinetry has progressed beyond hand tools. I am definitely not saying they have it right (or wrong) but I am saying that heavily automated production lines can give the impression of significant cost savings, but they should be taken on the round with everything else that goes with them and then the necissity to have the volume.

A good example is Morgan the car company or Caterham. Pretty unautomated production lines, vehicles that relatively speaking are not massively costly compared with the volume manufacuteres, a long list of people waiting delivery, and relatively profitable businesses. The point. Simply that small scale manufacturing is still possible, and volume brings its own challenges, but from the consumers point of view usually a much more consistent product, and better value for money because the manufacturer can work on much smaller volumes. However the second part is only true in a market with true competition and enough price challenge to keep prices down and / or quality up. I do have a concern that even for Bavaria there isnt enough challenge in the market to ensure this happens, but again I dont know.

Yes, my maths were a bit wrong, but you got the point.

One of the biggest problems with getting big in any type of business, is that you are on a constant treadmill. You have to keep developing, marketing, selling, and delivering in order to keep the wheels on the wagon. Then you have the cashflow problems, constant stroking of the investors/banks/lenders, etc. It can be a very tough place to be.

The good old adage of "get niche, get big, or get out" is as true for boat building as for pretty-much any other business.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this, there are just different approaches which produce different outcomes and different products with different benefits, and there's clearly a market for both approaches otherwise they wouldn't both be in business.

A good friend of mine runs a specialist boatbuilding company. They build 1 boat a year. His view is that they get the ability to choose their customers as much of the other way around, and the stress levels are far less, so they can actually do what they enjoy doing rather and being slaves to the machine.

 

[Tranona]

The problem there is how we define "value". People - a few people - buy Oysters, so they must in some sense be worth what they cost (cf the T35 which nobody wanted to buy) . Maybe the question is "How cheaply could this boat be sold if it was built in the numbers and with the facilities of Bavaria.

Thanks JD. We are now getting to the nub of the issue. Sticking my neck out I think many premium boats are appalling value for money. The IP video was an eye opener. Took me back over 40 years when I used to frequent South Coast UK boatbuilders, working in not dissimilar ways. Look how many people are standing around with their hands on their hips doing nothing or instructing a worker how to do something as if they were making it up as they go along. Then the laminator tearing of strips of mat to make it fit -as if they don't know the size and shape required already. Still at least their high quality woodwork is based on CNC cut components so it should fit without having to be lovingly hand shaped. This is an archetypal cottage workshop with a nod to modern.

That is at a guess the the reason for 50% of the premium over a production boat. The rest goes on higher spec components and materials and probably more of them. So, you are right - the question is how much would it cost for Bavaria to build such a boat with the same design and materials, not the earlier question of what could Bavaria do with their existing boats spending 30% more. And my guess is, and putting it into my context, when I was buying my boat, the initial list was HR 310 at £190k (remember at the time my life expectation was not high and money not really the issue), Bene 311 at £115k, Jenneau 32 at £110k, Bavaria 33 at £100k or Hanse 325 at just under £90k (model runout offer) - all essentially the same spec. The HR price was inflated because of the inordinate cost of some extras - the starting price difference is much smaller which is part of the reason why it was on the list, but it is delivered on the water price to your spec that matters.

So, following my line of reasoning, a Bavaria built HR 310 would be less than £150k - in marketing terms back to what an HR 29 premium was over a Sadler 29 in the 1980s. Would it work? No for the same reason the "Jaguar" Ford did not succeed. Premium boats are luxury products where buyers are looking for something that is not available in production boats. The small volume sales is part of what makes it attractive, so you could never generate enough sales to justify the investment in volume production - and who would buy a Bavaria 310 when you could get a Bavaria 33 with a saving of £50k?

A luxury product is bought as a whole, not the sum of its parts - and one of the big cost items that go into the product that are not in production boats include the cost of the build time in weeks rather than days and the non productive labour element in each individual boat. It is a pity that the Northshore yard is no longer operating otherwise you could see the amount of time wasted by climbing up and down steps, in and out of the cabin, drilling holes to fit things individually and so on. As you can see from the Bavaria video most of this is avoided by CAD and CNC and using subassemblies constructed away from the boat. Yes, my boat was built in a week and delivered to the Hamble the next weekend. There were no faults, everything fitted perfectly everything worked first time (and except for a software glitch in the Garmin gear and a failed Volvo exhaust muffler) it is still the same 5 years later. My old 37 was similar and withstood 7 years chartering with no real problems. As we know, boats die of neglect, not use and well used and cared for there is no reason why they should not last as well and look as good as well looked after premium boats.

As we see on this thread people like to promote boats they own or would like to own I have no problem with that. What does annoy me with some, though to justify their argument is to constantly say what they see as bad about production boats (and therefore by implication what is good about their choice) and if only buyers could see this they would make a different choice. Example - boats are shabby and worn out after a few years -exactly the opposite of what owners and buyers experience. Boats are not suitable offshore (bluewater) sailing - tell that to all the production boats taking part in the ARC over the years and now all the youtubes etc that get posted here of modest production boats long distance cruising such as www.mjambo.de or Patrick Laine. This ignores the fact that many buyers (several examples on this thread) are very experienced people who have owned many boats and sailed extensively in many different parts of the world and buy production boats in the full knowledge of what they are buying - because their purchase meets their needs and gives value for money.

 

[Daydream believer]

. The point. Simply that small scale manufacturing is still possible, and volume brings its own challenges, but from the consumers point of view usually a much more consistent product,

Consistent ----You have never bought a hood or a side window for a Morgan have you???
Quality ? Do not ask-- Yes! I had one
Style -- Of course I would love another

 

[JumbleDuck]

Robots are amazing bits of kit, and there is no substitute if you churning out enough product, but equally they must be amortised over the production and the time they save needs to be significant. It is the age old argument with automation. I dont know the answer, but I am not convinced most yacht manufacturers have the volume to take the best advantage of this, but it would require a better understanding of the economics that I have in my possession.

Bavaria's stuff was presumably paid for by the two owners who went bust, so if even they can't make it work, what hope for smaller companies. Maybe it would make sense to have multiple makes constructed by one maker - in much the way Northshore did in a blokes-with-ladders way, building my Victoria, Fishers and so on.

 

[rotrax]

Now I have - no, dont lie, First Mate has - worked out putting pics on here, I will post a shot of a proper Morgan.

Watch this space.

 

[Bobc]

Bavaria's stuff was presumably paid for by the two owners who went bust, so if even they can't make it work, what hope for smaller companies. Maybe it would make sense to have multiple makes constructed by one maker - in much the way Northshore did in a blokes-with-ladders way, building my Victoria, Fishers and so on.

Which they do, as they now build the sailing boats, the motor boats, and the Nautitech Cats.

 

[scruff]

I've watched both those videos and have came to a rather surprising (for me) conclusion. Regardless of cost I'd choose a Bavaria over an IP any day of the week. Built to far tighter tolerances, less scope for a "friday afternoon" car, the IP workshop untidy & disorganised - bet the staff spend 1/3 of their time looking for stuff.

The IP may well be twice the price, but all that extra cost is to pay for the inefficiency in the build process, it's not going towards higher quality at all (quite the opposite really!)