Yachting Monthly New Boat Tests
- Thread starter snooks
- Start date
[70521]
Well-Known Member
snooks
Well-Known Member
Thanks,
1- Tick
2 - We used to, but do we give choices on same size or price or both?
3 - I use apparent wind (AWA/AWS) as it's not reliant on a yacht's log/GPS reading with the figures I could put it through the table here http://www.hydesailsdirect.com/Articles.asp?ID=278 and also supply TWS
4 - I'm reliant on manufacturers being 100% truthful with me on this. Not saying there are some who aren't, but it's something I can't verify independently.
Going back to the speed etc. I think they are helpful, but I'm also aware that it only gives a snapshot of that boat (no stores/equipment/new sails/clean antifoul) on that day in that wind.
How usefully does everyone else find them?
doug748
Well-Known Member
Great that you have asked
no idea what they are saying in this review http://saareyachts.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Saare-Yachts-Saare41_Yacht-Test_23-2008.pdf
But I like the data that has been included and the way it is presented (stowage volumes, headroom etc) and really appreciate the details on construction. Also like the list of what is standard - would be good to have a common list of likely extras used consistently across all reviews so you can see at a glance what is and isn't included. Some of the German boat reviews have a nice format imho. For me though it's the construction details where you can really make a difference. No disrespect but a quick glance at the drawings and I can see the galley is to starboard, so general descriptions of the interior aren't that useful but what isn't immediately obvious is how is the boat built and assembled and what is your informed opinion on the construction details. You are in a better position than Jo public to glean such insights or even visit the factories.
I have to agree with much of this.
Nigel Calder and Chris Beeson say:
"6 key decision-making tools
When it comes to choosing your yacht, you’ll find the published statistics -are very useful decision-making tools, including:
•Displacement/length (D/L) ratio
•Ballast ratio
•Sail area/displacement (SA/D) ratio
•Angle of vanishing stability (AVS, also known as LPS, the limit of positive stability)
•The stability index (STIX) number
•Polar charts"
Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/yacht-reviews/understand-boat-statistics-30154#7vQXUSBCU4Qvl55z.99
So you really need those figures to get a handle on the boat. I would like to see the wetted area figure, stability graphic and a lines drawing as well - but that might be wishing for Christmas.
A while ago there was a review of a typical 40ft Med charter platform (July '16). It was supplied for review with laminate sails, 7ft 2in keel, performance deck package, slab reefing and no bow thruster.
In short it was not representative of the (10 hour RTIR) boat as she would be encountered by the average user. You have to review what you are given but his sort of thing needs to be pointed out, when spotted.
I enjoy the reviews but if it slams, is noisy in harbour, there is no stowage and the hull is bulked out with balsa wood tell us.
Voile take the boats away for a weekend but this is asking too much, I know.
Good Luck, I do like the idea of more used reviews.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
With respect to reports in French magazines :
There tend to be more and with larger photos.
When you read the text in English reviews you get to become acquainted with the particular foibles of the reviewer.
French reviews often combine the review with a distinct trip. eg In a recent issue a Cornish Crabber (?) was reviewed as it carried out a trip up the Rance. So both the boat and the place were reviewed.
I believe text should be limited to those aspects which you can't see in the photos : comfort, performance, etc
Whereas from time to time I like to dream but about 99% of the boats reviewed are outside my price range. So it's of academic interest only. I would like to see second hand boats reviewed showing their condition with an estimate of how much it would cost to bring them up to spec. Eg I was on a French sailer's Finnsailer 34 and it corresponded very closely to the sort of boat I would like. €20k plus €8k refurbishing.
PS Yes I know "new" is in the title.
Last edited:
snooks
Well-Known Member
We're just about to print a feature explain how misleading the ballast ratio figure is as it takes no account of where the ballast is located on the boat :0)
If I can get her to slam I'll say, if she's noisy/squeeky or the engine is loud I'll say. I'll also say of you need a left-handed child with a knowledge of engines to change the filters onboard too :0)
Having tried to in vain to get STIX numbers from manufacturers in the past, it was mostly a thankless task as I'd often get phone calls or Emails asking me what the STIX number is all about which contributed to their downfall in the magazine as it's not a figure that is usually supplied (no, I don't know why either). We did start writing 'not supplied' next to the STIX, but when it became a too regular occurance we stopped it, as it wasn't informing anyone.
Sadly, you're right, we are limited to the boats we are given, you would have thought manufacturers would make sure that boat is perfect, but as you'll have read there are often problems and I can only write a report about that boat and how she performed on that day (or the next if I get a couple of days), and I'm also limited by the weather and the layout I get to test too.
One thing about the performance-pack boats, supplied with fancy membrane sails, performance keels etc, is they are usually hit hardest when you look at the price as tested bit, they suddenly start looking very expensive. :0)
RobF
Well-Known Member
Ok, a few ideas from me...
a) Please ditch the "Would she suit your style of sailing" star rating. A Beneteau 51 with 2.25m of draft gets 0 stars for Creek Crawling! Who would have guessed it! A 26 foot trailer sailor (Baycruiser) gets 0 stars for high latitude adventure... I won't go on, you get the idea.
b) It's great that some of the more unusual boats get reviewed (the RM970 being a welcome example). I would prefer the big boats to get covered by Yachting World
c) Where a particular feature is noted in the text, please can we have a photo of it (unless it's really self evident)
d) Photos of the Aft Cabins are also appreciated (missing from a number of recent articles). I do appreciate that it can be hard to get a good shot of an aft cabin (also appreciate you're a professional photographer
e) I like it when you pick out design features which aren't common on many boats. Using the RM970 example, I was intrigued there were cut outs in the boom, but this didn't appear to be covered in the text.
f) The annotated pictures are good
g) It would be helpful if you could mention what's included in the standard package and what are extras. The review of the Najad 450CC (a bit more than 12 month's ago) sported some pretty interesting sails, but it wasn't clear whether they were part of the standard package or not (interestingly, you did draw out the electric furling as being an optional extra - although at £13k you were wise to do so).
h) It's good to have the 'performance on test' section. If at all possible, can you include a polar diagram (even if it's just copied and pasted from the manufacturer)?
a) Please ditch the "Would she suit your style of sailing" star rating. A Beneteau 51 with 2.25m of draft gets 0 stars for Creek Crawling! Who would have guessed it! A 26 foot trailer sailor (Baycruiser) gets 0 stars for high latitude adventure... I won't go on, you get the idea.
b) It's great that some of the more unusual boats get reviewed (the RM970 being a welcome example). I would prefer the big boats to get covered by Yachting World
c) Where a particular feature is noted in the text, please can we have a photo of it (unless it's really self evident)
d) Photos of the Aft Cabins are also appreciated (missing from a number of recent articles). I do appreciate that it can be hard to get a good shot of an aft cabin (also appreciate you're a professional photographer
e) I like it when you pick out design features which aren't common on many boats. Using the RM970 example, I was intrigued there were cut outs in the boom, but this didn't appear to be covered in the text.
f) The annotated pictures are good
g) It would be helpful if you could mention what's included in the standard package and what are extras. The review of the Najad 450CC (a bit more than 12 month's ago) sported some pretty interesting sails, but it wasn't clear whether they were part of the standard package or not (interestingly, you did draw out the electric furling as being an optional extra - although at £13k you were wise to do so).
h) It's good to have the 'performance on test' section. If at all possible, can you include a polar diagram (even if it's just copied and pasted from the manufacturer)?
doug748
Well-Known Member
This is what the RYA think:
"Just as it is mandatory for the fuel consumption of all new cars to be published so the RYA believes that stability information should also be available to a buyer of a boat."
"If it’s still not made available then smell a rat."
Just keep saying it and do us all a favour:
"We asked the agent for the STIX figure but they were unable to supply it."
pvb
Well-Known Member
Dufour Grand Large 310 - displacement 4.90t less 1.33 ballast = 3.57 hull weight.
Hallberg-Rassy 310 - displacement 4.35t less 1.68 ballast = 2.67 hull weight.
So which is the more lightly built boat?
pvb
Well-Known Member
Agreed, the Chris Beeson videos are superb. He has a knack of finding, and commenting on, peculiar features.
snooks
Well-Known Member
The Dufour may be heavier (twin rudders and twin wheels compared to the HRs single rudder and tiller steering) but displacement is no indication of build quality.
Javelin
Well-Known Member
When swmbo and I went to SIBS this year we looked a lot of the yachts (34' to 45') on show and all the ones we looked at had good and bad points and this was without sailing them.
Some looked and felt that they had been put together by kitchen fitters with materials sourced from B&Q.
Open a cupboard and there were gaps and poor finishing even on the HR.
Fit out on the Rustler stood head and shoulders above the rest but built on a hull and deck design that felt like going back 40 years.
Access to chain plates and seacocks was very difficult on some and on a couple of 40' plus boats there was a serious lack of handholds to get from the companionway forward.
Lots of heads and showers but nowhere for your wet gear to go unless there are only two of you.
Expensive classy gear in the cockpit to catch your eye but plain bearing sheave blocks at the mast base.
Hidden away halyards in areas that you know will just collect crud, grot, seagul crap etc oh and hatches that opened forwards on one boat.
Printed and soldered circuit boards instead of proper fuse panels? is this really an step forwards.
Liked the washboard design and cockpit table setup on a couple of boats though and engine installation was generally good though there were a couple where god only knows how you get access to the gearbox and the lift pump on one boat was just impossible to get too.
Engine controls on starboard qtr only on a couple of twin wheel boats and my current pet hate, open backed cockpits on a cruising yacht where the only chance of getting significant green water over the decks is from the wash of a badly piloted gin palace, with the chart plotter only viewable from a foot away from the transom. (am I the only person who uses an autohelm and sits forward of the helm position?)
I guess my point is there is a hell of a difference in sailing a boat on charter for a week and actually owning and living with one.
For my part I'd like to see a bit more depth in what it would be like to actually own the boat on test.
Sorry rant over..........
Some looked and felt that they had been put together by kitchen fitters with materials sourced from B&Q.
Open a cupboard and there were gaps and poor finishing even on the HR.
Fit out on the Rustler stood head and shoulders above the rest but built on a hull and deck design that felt like going back 40 years.
Access to chain plates and seacocks was very difficult on some and on a couple of 40' plus boats there was a serious lack of handholds to get from the companionway forward.
Lots of heads and showers but nowhere for your wet gear to go unless there are only two of you.
Expensive classy gear in the cockpit to catch your eye but plain bearing sheave blocks at the mast base.
Hidden away halyards in areas that you know will just collect crud, grot, seagul crap etc oh and hatches that opened forwards on one boat.
Printed and soldered circuit boards instead of proper fuse panels? is this really an step forwards.
Liked the washboard design and cockpit table setup on a couple of boats though and engine installation was generally good though there were a couple where god only knows how you get access to the gearbox and the lift pump on one boat was just impossible to get too.
Engine controls on starboard qtr only on a couple of twin wheel boats and my current pet hate, open backed cockpits on a cruising yacht where the only chance of getting significant green water over the decks is from the wash of a badly piloted gin palace, with the chart plotter only viewable from a foot away from the transom. (am I the only person who uses an autohelm and sits forward of the helm position?)
I guess my point is there is a hell of a difference in sailing a boat on charter for a week and actually owning and living with one.
For my part I'd like to see a bit more depth in what it would be like to actually own the boat on test.
Sorry rant over..........
Last edited:
rwoofer
Well-Known Member
+1
And I hate the fact that pillows are put at the end of v-berths so that you cannot see how squashed your feet will be.
I find many of the French boat tests excellent, where they provide many of the measurements that manufacturers don't e.g. length and width of berths, length and width of cockpit seats etc. One of them highlights with photos practical features and non-practical/poor features.
TangaraToo
RIP
Would it be possible to re-visit a reviewed boat 12 months later getting thoughts from owners who have bought and sailed them?
pvb
Well-Known Member
I'm confused now. What exactly do you mean by "lightly built" then?
snooks
Well-Known Member
Less substantial. More flex in hand holds/floor boards etc, lacking the solid feel of the other.
snooks
Well-Known Member
I don't generally put cushions at the feet end, when I do it's either to show the end of the berth and add colour, or if there is a mirror to hide my reflection when I'm taking the images.
If there are pillows they'll be at the head end of the berth.
I usually try to put in the berth sizes, but they do break up the way the article reads as this is the format I inherited. This is why I asked the question :0)
flaming
Well-Known Member
I'm really not sure how much dimensions and the like really add. After all, this is exactly the sort of thing that a visit to a Boat Show or a dealer is perfect for. Have a look at the boat and see if you fit into the berths or can stand up in the cabin yourself. Or does the boat have whatever pet peeve you have from a layout point of view.
A quick look at the sail plan, deck plan and internal layout, plus the price, is enough to knock 95% of the available new boats off any particular boat shopper's short list, so it's not unreasonable in my view to expect that a motivated buyer will at least visit all that remain at a Show or at a Dealer.
What a boat test aught, in my view, to be for is to help to evaluate the things that you cannot know from a visit to a Boat Show, and to highlight anything that is unusual about the boat. So that should be mainly the performance and handling. And to my mind, if it's going to be printed in a mag, then it has to be entertaining or interesting to read in its own right. If you are focused on printing specific data that would only be of interest to anyone seriously considering a purchase at the expense of holding a more general audience then your audience just dropped to almost single figures.
The thing I'm always looking for whenever I read any boat review is an answer to the question "Why does this boat stand out from the crowd?" Is it sailing performance, space, details, handling, clever design, price.... or what? If the reader of the review cannot answer that question after reading it, then frankly what was the point?
Heckler
Well-Known Member
Do second hand AWB tests. Duncan Kent used to do it for ST. He did our Bene 351 a few years ago. Take someone like me along to give an opinion on the state of the engine and gear, How has it fared over the years? How has the structure of the boat fared? how does it sail in comparison with the latest offering? Do the built in water fi glass tanks have osmosis, how has the rudder fared?
What to look for in a second hand one.
Stu
pvb
Well-Known Member
Ah, right, so flimsily built out of heavier materials.
The floorboards in my old HR flexed and creaked so much that I added extra supports, glassed in to the hull, to try to stop it. Only partly successful.
