# Boat Rankings



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hi,

How would you rank the following boat manufacturers from "Best" to "Worst"? You get to determine what "best" means to you.

Catalina, Hunter, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Dufour, C&C, Tartan, Sabre, Dehler, Hanse

Feel free to add additional manufacturers if you want too. 

Thanks,
Barry


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

I think there should be some sort of use qualifier for this such as off shore, inland, protected waters. 
Maybe one way of looking at this is pound per foot comparison.


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

I'll bite - C&C, Tartan, Sabre, Catalina, Hanse, Dehler, Dufour, Beneteau, Jenneau, Hunter.

But depending on year range, the list might be higher/lower for particular brands... example: The Hunter Cherubini lines are quite good. I like certain versions of Catalinas as well over others.

S2 has some pretty high quality boats (certain years). J boats, some are better than others. WD Schock boats depending on models. Lots of other brands to consider as well.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

In my mind, there is problem with this question as I see it. Almost all boat builders, who have been in business over a longer period of time, may have had better period, and better models, and some pretty crummy periods and models. That makes ranking a manufacturer very tricky.
Beyond that it seems like ranking should be based on solid criteria that might include build quality, design quality, sailing ability, seaworthiness, and suitability for it's intended purpose. But then again some folks might want to include level of fit and finish, or standard equipment, performance, or any other criteria that floats their boat, so to speak.

Then there is the horse trading, balancing say a company that has consistently built high build quality boats vs higher performance boats, vs a company that has pinnacles of grandeur as well as long plateaus of mediocrity.

There are a few companies like X-yachts who have consistently built carefully engineered, ergonomically laid out, high performance boats. Dehler used to be known for a similar consistency. There were small shops like Olsen and Holby, who had extremely high build quality but with a strong performance bias. There are some higher production number better quality production builders like CS. But boat builders who do a decent balance of criteria are a pretty rare commodity.

Jeff


----------



## flee27 (Jan 16, 2018)

I like SNHOOL's list...Almost. But I am partial.

Sabre, C&C, Tartan, Catalina, Hanse, Dehler, Dufour, Beneteau, Jenneau, Hunter. I think you can put can put #4 (Catalina) through #6 (Jenneau) in about any order without much argument. 

I like any boat that anyone loves and is proud of. And as always, horses for courses. 

Foster-Proud owner of a Sabre 42.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Catalina above Hanse and Dufour? I don't think so. Isn't it common knowledge that Jeanneau is little more than an upgraded Beneteau (same company, like Lexus and Toyota)? That order seems weird. Hunter (modern Hunter) is last.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

You are all wrong. The definitive list:

My boat; everyone else's boat


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the comments. My sort of goal was to get some feedback on what most people think. My own personal ranking would be
Sabre, Tartan, C&C, Catalina, Dehler, Jeanneau, Dufour, Hanse, Beneteau, Hunter.

I agree that there are some specific models that are better / worse than others and not all boats from one brand are equal. 

Personally, I'm in the market for a newer, bigger, boat. I want a FAST CRUISER the 40' range. The boat must sail really well, and must be comfortable. No stripped racer. No shoal draft cruiser with in mast furling. An XP44 would be perfect, but WAY out of my budget. I was focusing on the Dehler 42/41 but they are impossible to find. Originally I excluded Jeanneau because most have shoal draft, in mast furling, or no traveler. However I found a Sun Odyssey 409 performance model that I hope will work for me. I also found a very nice looking Dufour 40E performance boat as well. So now I'm re-thinking my views on what boats are better or worse, and, more important for me: what boats meet my needs, regardless of perception.

Barry


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

If I had to rank these (plus a few that I threw in), and assuming some of these are still available, I would rank them this way:

CURRENTLY MIXED CRITERIAPERFORMANCE BEST MODELBUILD QUALITY BEST MODEL1​DehlerC&CX-yachts2​X-yachtsX-yachtsJ-Boats3​J-BoatsJ-BoatsDehler4​SabreBeneteauSabre5​TartanHanseBeneteau6​BeneteauTartanTartan7​JeanneauSabreHunter8​C&CCatalinaC&C9​DufourJeanneauJeanneau10​HanseHanseHanse11​CatalinaDufourCatalina12​HunterHunterDufour

Here is what I mean by the column titles:
 Currently Mixed Criteria: This is based on the current (or most recent models if the company is essentially out of production) and on a set of criteria that are a mix of build quality, design quality, sailing ability, seaworthiness, and performance. 
Performance Best Model: This is based on the highest performing boats built by that manufacturer in the past 20 or so years and not on the average model. In the case of C&C for example, they recently built a 'no-hold-barred" race boat that would out perform anything built by the other manufacturer's. That does not make it the best boat to own. X-yachts, J-Boats, and Beneteau have each built dual purpose boats which perform very well over a broad range of conditions and in that regard maybe are better boats to own.
Build quality Best Model: This is a tough one, In my mind a part of 'build quality" should include the quality of the engineering, as well as the choice of materials and methods of construction, and the associated quality control. When you look at some of these companies it gets very tough to rank them. For example, Sabre used good materials and methods and had good quality control, but the quality of the engineering was not all that great. By that I do not mean that the boats were inherently weakly engineered. But the engineering was not optimized to balance weight to strength, and ergonomic engineering was really poor, Similarly, Beneteau has produced some really poorly engineered and built boats at times, but in general, their best built boats are well engineered and have exceptionally high quality control measures in place.

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> If I had to rank these (plus a few that I threw in), and assuming some of these are still available, I would rank them this way:
> 
> CURRENTLY MIXED CRITERIAPERFORMANCE BEST MODELBUILD QUALITY BEST MODEL1​DehlerC&CX-yachts2​X-yachtsX-yachtsJ-Boats3​J-BoatsJ-BoatsDehler4​SabreBeneteauSabre5​TartanHanseBeneteau6​BeneteauTartanTartan7​JeanneauSabreHunter8​C&CCatalinaC&C9​DufourJeanneauJeanneau10​HanseHanseHanse11​CatalinaDufourCatalina12​HunterHunterDufour
> 
> ...


Wow! Tapatalk really scrambled your table, but after looking at it on the main site, I am curious...how is it that you rank Jeanneau build quality so far below Beneteau in build quality when they are both built in the same factory by the same people?

Of course we are have our own biases, but when it comes to the Beneteau vs Jeanneau the big difference I believe is design philosophy. Beneteau designs 2 different boats in each size range. A racer/cruiser with more emphasis on performance, and a full on cruiser. When looking at the Beneteaus built at the same time as my boat, there was the First 40.7 and the Oceanis 393. The 40.7 is a great racer cruiser that still has an active fleet, but it definitely made some sacrifices to cruising comfort and functionality. For those not interested in performance there was the 393, which checked a lot more boxes for cruisers, but in terms of sailing performance is a bit of a dog.

Jeanneau has a different philosophy. They come up with 1 design that performs well, and then they tweak performance using different trim levels. A Sun Odyssey and a SunFast (now known as Performance) are the same basic boat, but the SunFast, had taller mast, deeper keel etc, but you don't sacrifice the amenities at all.

Using this philosophy Jeanneau has consistently produced great sailing boats that perform almost as well as Beneteaus race offerings, but far better than their cruising line, and they seem more refined than the beneteaus, with better ergonomics. Perhaps that is because they focus their resources on 1 boat rather than 2.

They also design much better looking boats than Beneteau does!

I would expect build quality would be pretty much the same as Beneteaus, both of which I suspect are also similar to all the other production boats and better than some.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SchockT said:


> I am curious...how is it that you rank Jeanneau build quality so far below Beneteau in build quality when they are both built in the same factory by the same people?
> 
> Jeanneau has a different philosophy. They come up with 1 design that performs well, and then they tweak performance using different trim levels. A Sun Odyssey and a SunFast (now known as Performance) are the same basic boat, but the SunFast, had taller mast, deeper keel etc, but you don't sacrifice the amenities at all.
> 
> ...


Here is the quick explanation, When I was looking at build quality I was looking at the best built model from each builder. Beneteau has built a number of lines of boats over the years, some have had an extremely high level of engineering and quality control. In fact the level of engineering and quality control used on some models exceeds that of many custom and low volume builders. That is not the normal off the rack 'Number', Oceanis, or Idylle series that most folks think of when they think of Beneteau. By the same token, Jeanneau has also produced some very highly engineered designs (JOD for example) but most of the more recent (last 20 years) Jeanneaus have not had the same commitment to structural and ergonomic engineering, and the related quaility control. I was tempted to move Jeanneau up the list because of the Sunfast 3300, but I thought that the ergonomics were not as well executed as they should have been for a double-handed race boat, and there has been discussion that they are not holding up as well as they perhaps should.

I will note that Jenneaus are not built in the same factory as Beneteau and that not all Beneteaus are built in the same factory or with the same standard of care. 
But when it comes to the 'Mixed Criteria' which I was basing on a broader view of the current boats, for me it was a toss up between Jeanneau and the Beneteaus.

Jeff


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BarryL said:


> Originally I excluded Jeanneau because most have shoal draft, in mast furling, or no traveler.


All depends on your desire. If you need every last degree of pointing, you'll need every last bit of draft. However, that also comes with the cost of access to more anchorages. If you think about it, you'll spend substantially more time at anchor than pointing. A serious vang system really can replace a traveler, in many cases. Especially when a non-battened furling main probably isn't the designs primary propulsion. On our in-mast setup, the 150 mast-head Genoa is doing most of the work. I would be more concerned with main sail options, if I had a fractional jib out front. We actually do have a traveler and I find I rarely bother. Modern furling systems are far more reliable than the reputation earned by their earliest ancestors. I dare say most boats crossing oceans in the various rallies have mast or boom furling.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

BarryL said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. My sort of goal was to get some feedback on what most people think. My own personal ranking would be
> Sabre, Tartan, C&C, Catalina, Dehler, Jeanneau, Dufour, Hanse, Beneteau, Hunter.
> ...


I would rank them similar to what you have, although I don't think I would rank Catalina that high.

Sabre and Tartan are premium brands that are going to cost a lot more. C&C are also pretty pricey, and tend to be more performance oriented. We had a close look at a C&C 121 before we bought. I was tempted by the performance aspects, but it was an epic fail when it came to interior design, storage and layout. The Jeanneaus and Beneteaus were much better thought out as cruising boats.

The X-yachts and Dehlers are very nice, but again, they are much more expensive than the typical production yacht. A friend of mine has an XP44 that he plans to do transpac, vic Maui etc on, but also family cruising. Things like a cavernous sail locker in the foredeck, and a cockpit table that stows into its own compartment in the cockpit sole are great touches, but that boat would cost more than double what I paid for mine.

The nice thing about Jeanneaus is that they seem to find a good balance between interior space, comfort and performance. They are typically faster than a similar sized Catalina, Beneteau, Bavaria or Hunter. (Based on phrf numbers and anecdotal evidence)

It is interesting that you see only shoal draft and furling main Jeanneau models where you are. Here it is quite the opposite. Of course shoal draft are not very popular here, but I see far more furling mains on Beneteaus, Hunters and Catalinas. More often than not Jeanneaus have classic mains and stack packs, at least until you get up over 45ft. The reasoning given by my broker is that people opting for Jeanneaus are doing so because they want the better performance they offer.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I have no practical experience with these mfgs... guessing

 Contest 

Dufour
Dehler
Sabre
Beneteau
Jeanneau
Hanse
C&C
Tartan
Catalina
Hunter


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

BarryL said:


> Originally I excluded Jeanneau because most have shoal draft, in mast furling, or no traveler. However I found a Sun Odyssey 409 performance model that I hope will work for me.
> Barry


My Jeanneau 39i has batten cars for the main, and a 6'7" keel as well as a traveler. Also a removable bowsprit and German sheeting system, so it depends on the model. I think those things are common among the Sun Odyssey model after 2008.
As for that list, I'm curious to know how Catalina gets ranked so high. C&C ate Tartan, so they are pretty interchangeable, yeah? X-Yachts I love and someday will grow up to be able to afford one!


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

rbrasi said:


> My Jeanneau 39i has batten cars for the main, and a 6'7" keel as well as a traveler. Also a removable bowsprit and German sheeting system, so it depends on the model. I think those things are common among the Sun Odyssey model after 2008.
> As for that list, I'm curious to know how Catalina gets ranked so high. C&C ate Tartan, so they are pretty interchangeable, yeah? X-Yachts I love and someday will grow up to be able to afford one!


The German sheeting is not stock on the 39i, it must have been a mod by the previous owner. As far as I know Jeanneau didn't start using German sheeting until the next generation.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I think this is silly. A bunch of internet forum posters ranking boats they probably have never even been on by make, not ever a specific model.

Here is all I can say

I own a 2001 Hunter 410. Have owned it 10 years including the last 4.5 full time cruising. It has had ZERO built issues!
I used to have a 1988 Cal-39 and owned for it 2 years. I didnt have any build issues either really. But its 1988 high quality build method was crap compared to 2001 Hunter build methods.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Don L said:


> I think this is silly. A bunch of internet forum posters ranking boats they probably have never even been on by make, not ever a specific model.
> 
> Here is all I can say
> 
> ...


I agree with Don's basic premise. I answer the thread with no actual experience and so I rated them on no other criteria than appearance.

Like so many polls if you have no experience your opinion is of no value.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Don L said:


> I think this is silly. A bunch of internet forum posters ranking boats they probably have never even been on by make, not ever a specific model.
> 
> Here is all I can say
> 
> ...


I will start by saying that I have spent time sailing on and in most cases been through a survey of, and/or helped do repairs and maintenance on boats from every manufacturer that I commented on. In some cases I have had detailed experience with multiple models and dozens of examples over a long period of those company's production runs.

Regarding Hunter in particular, in the late 1990's and early 2000's, I ended up doing a deep dive into Hunter build quality. That process included hours of in depth conversations and dozens of emails. I also spoke with a half dozen surveyors.

The surveyors agreed that Hunter did the best job of building boats that were compliant with ABYC standards, and which generally held up better than the big four mass production builders of the day. (Catalina, Hunter, Bavaria, and Beneteau.) They further said Hunter tended to do better than many more respected brands in meeting standards.

The Beneteau's of the era also held up very well but more frequently had issues of ABYC non-compliance issues, and Euro-centric build choice preferences that were at odds with US preferences.

Bavaria had similar issues to those of Beneteau, but Bavarias tended to have more build quality issues than the others above.

Universally, the surveyors agreed that Catalina had the largest number of serious issues both in terms of non-compliance and structural issues. There was an agreement between the surveyors that matched my own observations that Catalinas seemed to appear worn more rapidly than the other three brands.

Now all of that was 20 years ago. Catalina and Beneteau have improved build quality. Bavaria is not much of a player, and Hunter is an entirely different brand that seems like a mix of some better ideas and some less appealing build details.

In my conversations with Hunter, I was impressed with the focus on achieving a reasonable build quality and low maintenance product that was well suited for it's purpose, at a good value pricing.But there was a lot of candour about what that intended purpose was. Largely Hunters were targeted towards coastal cruisers who sailed thier boats around a 1000 hours or less per year. Creature comforts and ergonomics were another major focus, as was delivering a reasonably well equipped standard product.

In that discussion, certain construction compromises were discussed with those compromised details being acknowledged as sellected because of some mix of ease of construction, cost savings or speed of construction. All were seen as being suitable and more than adequate for the typical use of their boats.

I came away thinking that Hunter, more than any other brand gets unfairly treated by the court of public opinion, especially for those who plan to use their boat as intended.

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> I will start by saying that I have spent time sailing on and in most cases been through a survey of, and/or helped do repairs and maintenance on boats from every manufacturer that I commented on. In some cases I have had detailed experience with multiple models and dozens of examples over a long period of those company's production runs.
> 
> Regarding Hunter in particular, in the late 1990's and early 2000's, I ended up doing a deep dive into Hunter build quality. That process included hours of in depth conversations and dozens of emails. I also spoke with a half dozen surveyors.
> 
> ...


I agree with Don that it is a but silly for people to be ranking boats that they have little or no experience with.

My opinions of different brands is based largely on my personal preferences, as well as discussions with people within my sailing circle, which, to be fair, does include quite a few "industry professionals" for whatever that is worth. (I am sure they have their own biasses!)

Newer Hunters have always had a bad reputation in my circles, which happens to include a lot of racers and performance sailors. It is widely held that they heavily emphasize maximum interior volume and comfort over sailing performance and ergonomics. I don't think anyone could argue that your average Hunter is fast. For some people that doesn't matter, and for those people Hunters will rank higher on their list due to other factors they bring to the table. For me they weren't even a consideration.

As for ABYC compliance, that does seem to be more of a North American thing. European boats do not seem to place the same importance on that. I have found a number of things on my boat that don't comply with ABYC recommendations. Those items would not cost anything for the builder to change, so clearly they are doing it differently because they disagree with ABYC. I am not sure a builder should be ranked lower on that basis. ABYC is not a governing body, and their recommendations are not code.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Jeff_H said:


> I will start by saying that I have spent time sailing on and in most cases been through a survey of, and/or helped do repairs and maintenance on boats from every manufacturer that I commented on. In some cases I have had detailed experience with multiple models and dozens of examples over a long period of those company's production runs.
> 
> Regarding Hunter in particular, in the late 1990's and early 2000's, I ended up doing a deep dive into Hunter build quality. That process included hours of in depth conversations and dozens of emails. I also spoke with a half dozen surveyors.
> 
> ...


I agree about Hunter. For those who have participated here for a few years, you will remember Smackdaddy, a prolific poster (since banned from these hallowed halls) who owned a Hunter and regularly extolled it's virtues and (true to his screen name) would smack around those who disagreed. I myself don't have a lot of experience with Hunter boats, but I do recall the few times I've been on one, I was impressed. And Smackdaddy, love him or hate him, backed up his opinions on Hunters with his own experience.

IMHO, Hunter's biggest problem was it's apostasy; it was the first American builder to make it's boats look european; it also constantly adopted stylings and innovations that were not the norm in North America (e.g., cockpit arches). And as Jeff points out, it aggressively and openly catered to the coastal cruising market while other US builders were still holding on to designs and features that at least purported to make their boats "blue water". All of this lead to conflict with the leaders of the sailing world, both the manufacturers and the "influencers". I'm guessing that this philosophy lead to an unwarranted amplification of bad juju when Hunter did run into it's well-publicized run of lesser quality construction. As Jeff has reminded us, every single builder has at one point or another had quality issues; but I think Hunter's were exacerbated by the fact that they didn't have a reservoir of good will in the industry and among the sailing traditionalists. Hunter's long term reputation has unfairly suffered because of it.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

So without direct experience my impressions of quality are based on most impressions from reading about different makers online. A builder like Tom Morris has a reputation for carefully made ... not factory production. Whether true or not I imagine that they do very few boats. My impression of Hunter on the other hand is that is a mass produced boat... almost assembly line production. And this would apply to builders who turn out a lot of hulls... which most on the list seem to do. I suppose the obvious differences would be deck and interior design and the details - hardware and joinery... and OEM equipment....


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

There was another cruiser on this forum who extolled the virtues of the Hunter brand. I don't remember his name, but he basically circumnavigated South America, then sold his Hunter and bought a canal boat in Denmark? Anyway, I think Mstern is right about the perception issue. My experience on them is pretty limited, but I don't think they look great. Just my opinion. The lack of backstay is another thing. They aren't all built that way, are they?


----------



## Aquarian (Nov 8, 2010)

Hanse wins. Really not interested in the others, but if I had to choose a second from this list, it would be a tartan or c&c.


----------



## 227702 (Oct 23, 2013)

Don L said:


> .....I own a 2001 Hunter 410. Have owned it 10 years including the last 4.5 full time cruising. It has had ZERO built issues.....


Ewwwwwwwwwe, a Hunter?
I've gotten the same treatment owning a Beneteau.
Screw 'em, screw 'em all.


----------



## 227702 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Hanse wins. Really not interested in the others, but if I had to choose a second from this list, it would be a tartan or c&c.


Jajajajajaja...rudder failures, anyone?
Boat people are funny.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

No Surprise in this thread. 
*Everyone likes their own boat*, and usually with good reason based on their personal use and geography.
Listing only boats I have sailed or done deliveries on, I would put into the top production boat group: Ericson (and Olson), C&C, Tartan, Cascade, Yamaha, Sabre, Hinterhoeller, Valliant, Jason.
I do have one delivery on a CT 38, and it was a great boat in the ocean, as was the KP-44, crewing it up the California coast.

Bottom of the list would go the usual suspects like Hunter. Catalina is better - more towards the center of the curve, but only a few of their models perform well.

"Love the one you're with" as the song sez......
Like what you sail, and don't worry about public opinion. The crumby boats cost a lot less to buy, and you get less when you sell them. It's the way of the world. Everyone gets what they are willing to settle for....


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

BarryL said:


> Hi,
> 
> How would you rank the following boat manufacturers from "Best" to "Worst"? You get to determine what "best" means to you.
> 
> ...


Ranked from best to worse: basically by build quality, considering +/- same LOA and year not necessarily a beauty contest. 
Tartan
Sabre
C&C
Dehler
Catalina
Jeanneau 
Beneteau 
Dufour 
Hanse
Hunter


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

This is a pretty funny thread.

The thing I've observed since starting to lurk around Sailnet , trying to learn a bit about boat designs, is the extraordinarily strong bias for older makes and designs, and in particular the extreme disparity between the preferences expressed by the market and the folks here. The love of defunct makers, coupled with disdain for those who have thrived and survived is really something. If I had a poster child or meme for this bias, it would be:










Maybe a Westsail or Allied would be more appropriate. That's a "Cherubini" if you don't feel like image searching.

It simply boggles the mind that - for folks who accept FRP boats! - there's a presumption that in either hull shape or building techniques, things are only worse today than they were way back when. It's a bit like insisting that a TAD Davis wood tennis racquet (Wilson) is superior to a modern Prince, Head or Babolat racquet. It is my suspicion that this is far more a reflection of what the cool or hot marketing was at the time the demographic who dominate sailing (or sailnet) were first really getting into sailing.

I suppose we (with a couple of exceptions) are all challenged by the difficulty in actually being able to inspect a lot of these boats on the hard and under the interior finishes, or sail them extensively. I have to say this is my single biggest gripe about a boat search, because in my ideal approach, I'd be chartering a few of these for a more extended trip. I met a lady who bought a boat in the gulf, sailed it home to the Chesapeake and immediately listed it for sale after having actually gotten to sail it for three months (ie, actually tried the boat out). Nice boat, I've got my eye on it.

I dunno, in every other area I dabble in - including beach cats - the modern iterative technology is vastly superior in every way. Tennis rackets, canoes, motorcycles....I dearly love my Prindle 18 (not 18-2 or 19), and it's still a fast boat, but I've sailed a few F17s, F18s and in-between Nacras, and the old girl is a DOG in every respect by comparison. I have an old PC19 (CBR600F) Honda bike, which at the time was the fastest and best of the 600cc SuperSport...and I hold onto it for sentimental reasons, though I regularly question my sanity, because I've ridden modern "luxobarges" (GoldWings) that far exceed the performance characteristics of what in 1987 was the absolute pinnacle of engineering. A 2020 Honda Odyssey will absolutely cream an aircooled 911 (not just in speed and power, but in handling). The love for IOR influenced, tender and hobby-horse hull shapes just boggles my mind. Perhaps I need a few long passages in nasty weather to better appreciate these characteristics.

I just seriously question the basis for any of these rankings or preferences. I know when I first became enamoured or enthralled by sailing as a 'tween' (about the same time my Prindle was 'current tech' - ~1980), all the cool boats were the boats you saw on the glossy magazine pages (O'Day, Hunter, Catalina, Tartan, Pearson). At some level, I still have a fondness, based in nothing more than an aesthetic appreciation of marketing as presented in a slick magazine, for those names. But I just cannot fathom that those makes/builders went the way of the dinosaur because somehow these vastly inferior "production boats" were just so much cheaper and the lumpenproletariat who bought them was so seriously unschooled as to not know the difference.

I do, however, very much appreciate that it means that I can get a vastly newer (and much disdained) design (and no matter build quality, a decades younger hull) for much less. I've had a few *old* salts at the marina rave about the wonders of a Sabre, and have looked at a couple, and while I can certainly see they were lovely fit-and-finish, I have been utterly unable to square how I would ever reason my way to buying a boat that ticks so many fewer boxes and will likely need so much more immediate refitting for more money up front (and after). The only one I've seen even remotely approaching a reasonable price was a pretty well thrashed (though maintained) sailing school boat.

On this list: even having said everything else above, I do not see how Catalina consistently rates as highly as it does. I do suspect the build quality differences of these different makes are much, much smaller than is commonly presented. But every Catalina I've been on is a dog (and the phrf ratings pretty much back me up on this); admittedly I haven't been on Ericssons, Cal, etc. I'm sure they're fine boats, and they sell a lot of boats, and owners love their boats, so I'm sure that explains a lot. Comparing cruising comfort features, Catalina and Hunter really do seem to pack the most in.

So, since this is a list of boats based on mostly personal subjective ranking, here's mine, with an essential bias towards best value overall (which doesn't mean brand new - I cannot fathom ever purchasing a boat - or anything else - brand new, someone else can take that depreciation hit, tyvm). I really agree with the idea that you have to rank by comparing specific boats, not makes, and that to be a fair ranking, they should be of essentially the same vintage. But it doesn't seem like we're doing that here, so:

Dehler
DuFour
Jeanneau
Hanse
Beneteau
Sabre
Tartan
Bavaria (only below Tartan and Sabre because the ones I've seen don't seem to have held up as well)
C&C
Hunter
Catalina

I am pretty intently searching for an 'aughts Bene, only because the vast majority of the Jeanneaus I see have deep keels, which I'd prefer for sailing, but are more challenging on the bay.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

s_ruffner said:


> I am pretty intently searching for an 'aughts Bene, only because the vast majority of the Jeanneaus I see have deep keels, which I'd prefer for sailing, but are more challenging on the bay.


That's funny, because someone else, I believe on this thread, said that they aren't looking at Jeanneaus because all of them seem to have in mast furling and shoal draft!

Honda CBR600F vs Gold Wing?
Honda Odyssey vs Porsche 911?
Apples and oranges!

I had an 89 CBR600F and it was a great bike! My son has a '15 CBR500R that I tried out just last night. Other than ABS brakes sportbikes haven't changed much!

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

SchockT said:


> That's funny, because someone else, I believe on this thread, said that they aren't looking at Jeanneaus because all of them seem to have in mast furling and shoal draft!


Yep, I caught that too. I dunno what to say: I'm on the east coast of the US, mid-Atlantic. All I see are the full-draft versions. The lady's boat I alluded to is an SO 36i, 6.33' draft.

I really want a stack-pack or similar, but I would, if the rest of the boat were right, accept in-mast furling. I'm going to be mostly in the Chesapeake, and I _know_ just as surely as the sun rises, that my wife would be vastly happier on a boat that could be rapidly and painlessly reefed in infinitely variable increments with the push of a button from the cockpit. And I am willing to trade away the sailing/pointing performance in exchange for a shoal draft for much the same reason - just less worry about getting in and out of skinny water. We are mostly marina hopping with a little gunkholing. I really just need something that's reasonable in light winds. July-Aug on the bay are either microbursts or dead wind.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Does this thread remind anyone else about which anchor is the best?


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

SchockT said:


> Honda CBR600F vs Gold Wing?
> Honda Odyssey vs Porsche 911?
> Apples and oranges!


Heh, I skipped over this: my point was indeed that some of these comparisions are...silly at best. But the point holds: a current generation Gold Wing with Honda's version of a Hossack front suspension will outperform that CBR600F on the track and in the twisties, even though the latter was really built for that purpose while the former is supposed to be a long-distance luxo-barge. Same with the minivan vs. the "sports car". The ABS is only one of many changes, and the dynamic damping on my Ducati (a Multi, not a Panigale) is vastly superior to the rod damping on that CBR; the radials are vastly better tyres. Heck, even my Suzuki ADV bike (cartridge forks and EFI) was a huge improvement over the CBR.

I can find a 15 year younger Bene 393 with about the same phrf as a '90 Sabre 38 mkII for about the same price. Plus nicer cruising features. I don't doubt the Sabre 38 MkII compares favorably to a mid-80s build Beneteau. The First 38 is probably the best apples:apples match, and has a better phrf than the Sabre, but the design probably isn't as comfortable (although I actually like the 3 cabin, 1 head layout better).

EDIT: I should also say: our tastes appear very similar, because I surely covet your 39i. If I could find one in a shoal draft with the 3 cabin layout that I didn't have to sail back from the BVI (where it had been in charter), I'd hop on it.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

s_ruffner said:


> This is a pretty funny thread.
> 
> The thing I've observed since starting to lurk around Sailnet , trying to learn a bit about boat designs, is the extraordinarily strong bias for older makes and designs, and in particular the extreme disparity between the preferences expressed by the market and the folks here. The love of defunct makers, coupled with disdain for those who have thrived and survived is really something. If I had a poster child or meme for this bias, it would be:
> 
> ...


This is spot on (except for the Catalina ranking). I have such a soft spot in my heart for look of the CCA-inspired designs. But, holy smokes, they suck as boats. Or rather I should say, they do not meet my needs and expectations. My tastes and desires about boats were formed as a child; boats were supposed to look like a Pearson Triton. It was part and parcel of the romance and attraction of the sea. And when I went shopping for my first big boy boat, I was inevitably drawn towards those designs because of those old associations. Well, that and the low prices. Fortunately (at least now I see it as fortunate), I couldn't find an old Pearson in decent shape, so I wound up with a late 70's Oday. Out and out "modern" in my novice view (this was in 2000). I sailed the hell out of that boat, and learned me a thing or two about what I found important and desirable in a sailboat. The Oday had some of those things, but not all. And I was able to see that the 1960's Pearson-esque boats that were formally my dream boats, had almost none of the positives, and had many of the negatives.

I used to scoff at the Beneteaus, Jenneaus, Hanses and similarly designed and built boats. "They look like a big sneaker"; "a block of melting cheese"; "who wants all that light colored IKEA looking wood below". Turns out that those hull shapes allow for the kinds of features that really jive with how I use my boat. And those interiors are bright, light and easy to keep clean.

Almost none of us sail the oceans; we move from marina to marina, or along the coasts to protected bays. The newer designs fit perfectly with this kind of sailing. That's why they sell. I no longer look down my nose at these brands; I no longer compare them to an old Hinkley or Valiant or Swan. If I could afford a new boat, that's what I'd probably buy.

So while I love to admire a well-preserved Pearson Vanguard, I'd never buy one. I wound up replacing the Oday with a Catalina 28. For sure, there are some things I'd like to change about the boat, but this boat really fits the way we sail.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

mstern said:


> So while I love to admire a well-preserved Pearson Vanguard, I'd never buy one. I wound up replacing the Oday with a Catalina 28. For sure, there are some things I'd like to change about the boat, but this boat really fits the way we sail.


So, I am probably being unfair about the Catalinas, having gone from fast beach cats to a Capri. I have seriously looked at a couple of C30 tall rigs. After tooling around a couple of seasons on a 32' boat, I've come to see that we're going to really need a 36'-40'. The Freedom 32-2 club boat that we're using (the way you talked about your O'Day) is nicely laid out, but my wife still feels is cramped; a buddy - from HS, who had the same love of boats and who I hadn't seen in 35 years(!) until he suddenly appeared in the slip next to me - has a Pearson 36-2, and my wife was very impressed by how much "roomier it was", even though I think it's really only slightly larger. It's a very nice boat, but we also have an acquaintance who has a Hunter 410 at Solomon's and has taken it to the Bahamas a few times; we found it to be a very nice boat, and the build quality seems equivalent. I hear the assertions that they're just not the same, but it always seems to come back to what a former coworker called the:

$CASH::MASS ratio. If you spend a lot of cash, you expect a lot of mass. If it's "light", you were cheated.

I agree very much with your comments about successful boats being appropriate to the way we actually sail. For me, I'll probably never square the coastal shoal draft with my desire to spend time island hopping and tooling around the Caribbean.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hi Guys,

Interesting comments. 

As people have observed, the boat that is right for you may not be the boat that is right for me. My primary focus on a boat is GREAT sailing ability. The ability to point high, sail in light wind, carry a lot of sail, the ability to tune and tweak the sails and rig, and to be able to win on the race course. So that rules out shoal draft boars and in mast furling. 

I also want a comfortable boat with a good galley, comfortable bunks, a head with reasonable sized shower, ventilation, etc. I am not going to be long distance cruising. I am not going to cross oceans. I am going to do a lot of day sails, a fair amount of weekend aboard, and the occasional week or longer trip. That rules out the typical race boat.

My C&C 110 was the perfect compromise or perfect racer / cruiser. Fast (PHRF under 100), good in light air (for a 36' boat that weighs 11K or so), good in heavy air, great interior, etc. Unfortunately C&C went under in late 2000s. The 115 is too similar to my boat, and the 121 is too old for me. 

I just received the survey report on my next boat, a 2011 Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 409, it revealed no serious issues, and I expect this boat to work out for me for many years. It had the deep draft (6' 10"), and sail plan to make me happy, as well as all of the creature comforts.

Some other thoughts:
No Honda Odyssey is going to beat any 911 on any road course. Trust me on this. I have owned two Odysseys (a 2002 and a 2006), and I have been a Porsche Club of America (PCA) member since 1994. In a previous life, before I discovered sailing, I was a serious track junky and actively raced a 944 turbo from 1997- 2002. I was also the chief driving instructor for my region (Metro NY). Yes, the minivan would be faster in a straight line than most 911's built before 1990, but the Porsche would outhandle and outbrake the van by a wide margin. After a few laps, the Honda brakes would be shot, and the tires would be corded from severe body roll. I've driven Just about every 911 from 1972 - 2006, including stock 911 SC with 180HP to modified 996 type turbo S with 500+HP.

I don't understand the Catalina hate. I think they make a good boat. Solid, dependable, lead keel, traditional designs. They won't win races, they don't follow many modern trends (no chines, plumb bows, open transoms), but I believe they are well made. 

IMHO, you really can't compare the quality of a Sabre to that of a Beneteau, Jeanneau etc. A friend has one of the last 386 models built and it's just stunning. The interior is amazing and the boat is so quiet when sailing that it's almost spooky. Yes, they are expensive. Yes, there are many nice lower priced boats out there and that's a good thing. But, again, IMHO, the Sabre boats are special. I haven't been on a Morris, or a Hinckley, so I can't comment on how those would compare to a Sabre. 

In my search for my next boat I seriously considered Dehler, Nice boats. Beautiful interior. Reasonable price. I would have loved to own a 42 model or even a new 38SQ. In the US they are very rare. I was close to ordering a new 38SQ but you can't get one until 2022. My search then lead me to Salona, a little known brand, built in Croatia. They are pretty high end, using similar construction as X boats (steel grid with all rig loads led to), but again, very few boats in America. In the used market, If you want to find a shoal draft boat with in mast furling, there are plenty. If you want deep draft, traditional main, good luck.

Barry


----------



## JohnBPrice (Aug 10, 2014)

Jeanneau's built before Beneteau bought Jeanneau are much better built than post Beneteau.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

BarryL said:


> No Honda Odyssey is going to beat any 911 on any road course.


I was thinking there was a C&D or like competition I'd read a while back, but I don't find it googling. What I do find is this Grassroots Motorsports shootout, which makes the same point, though it's an XKE and 356 vs. an earlier gen. Odyssey.

I will defer to your experience, but just how stock were those 911s (and I'm referring to brakes and suspension)? I've done a little bit of autocross (Triumph Spitfire, E30 BMW), but I'm certainly not an experienced autocrosser.



BarryL said:


> IMHO, you really can't compare the quality of a Sabre to that of a Beneteau, Jeanneau etc. A friend has one of the last 386 models built and it's just stunning. The interior is amazing and the boat is so quiet when sailing that it's almost spooky.


So, again, what do you mean by build quality? The hull integrity? The joinery? There's a constant implication that a lot of the newer production boats will crack up and sink when you get offshore in 2m waves.

Yes, a boat like that 386 is gorgeous (also has a more modern hull form), and is well outside of my budget!



BarryL said:


> If you want deep draft, traditional main, good luck.


I dunno, looking around on Yachtworld, BoatTrader, etc., I see plenty of traditional mains and deeper (>6') keels.


----------



## 227702 (Oct 23, 2013)

JohnBPrice said:


> Jeanneau's built before Beneteau bought Jeanneau are much better built than post Beneteau.


Prove it.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

s_ruffner said:


> So, again, what do you mean by build quality? The hull integrity? The joinery? There's a constant implication that a lot of the newer production boats will crack up and sink when you get offshore in 2m waves.
> 
> Yes, a boat like that 386 is gorgeous (also has a more modern hull form), and is well outside of my budget!


And there is the crux of the matter....cost! It is not reasonable to compare a production boat to the higher end and custom builders, any more than it is reasonable to compare a $25,000 Ducati to a $7000 Honda, or a $100,000 BMW to a $40,000 Ford.

We looked at A Tartan 3800...beautiful boat, with lovely millwork etc, but it was much more expensive for a much older boat than ours, and a pretty outdated (classic?) Design.

If I were planning to race more I would have considered a J120. Fantastic boats, very fast with nice interiors, except for the same money as our boat cost I would be getting a boat at least 10 years older, with a terrible cockpit for cruising compared to ours.

Modern production boats offer a lot of bang for the buck. They do that by using more synthetic laminates in the millwork instead of expensive exotic woods. They find ways to streamline the manufacturing process to keep costs down. One has to accept that trade-off if they want to get into a modern boat design on a limited budget.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

JohnBPrice said:


> Jeanneau's built before Beneteau bought Jeanneau are much better built than post Beneteau.


With all due respect, while there were some well engineered and well built Jenneau's before Beneteau bought Jeanneau, by and large, by the time Beneteau began investing in Jeanneau, the build quality had dropped considerably. It seemed like there was a sudden shift to better designs and better engineering once Beneteau bought Jeanneau. There is a tendencey in the general public to dismiss Beneteau's build quality, but my overall impression is that they do a very good job on both initial engineering and build quality control.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

s_ruffner said:


> I dunno, looking around on Yachtworld, BoatTrader, etc., I see plenty of traditional mains and deeper (>6') keels.


In fact, this prompted me to waste some Friday searching again, and came up with a FSBO 39i with a conventional main and a 2m keel, for a very attractive price nearby.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Skipper Jer said:


> Does this thread remind anyone else about which anchor is the best?


You mean a helix anchor, screwed in to submission? Not really. 



JohnBPrice said:


> Jeanneau's built before Beneteau bought Jeanneau are much better built than post Beneteau.


I think the real drop was in the '09-'10 range, when they ditched real teak, etc. Long after being a part of B. However, they managed a competitive price point and many hulls post this era still cross oceans. They've survived, which is more than most can say.


----------



## 227702 (Oct 23, 2013)

Skipper Jer said:


> Does this thread remind anyone else about which anchor is the best?


This is no different than your everyday, average beauty contest talent show. What little substance you are able to judge, is but one aspect of many, and yet you still choose one over the rest.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hello,

Perhaps "Build Quality" is the wrong term. If you look a the fit, finish, and quality of things like the ports, cabin sole, cabinets, chain plates, etc. you will see that the Sabre kit looks a lot nice than the Beneteau kit. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the Beneteau stuff - the boat is safe, will sail well, etc.

It's like cars. Any modern vehicle, like a new Hyundai Elantra, is very nice. You could jump in it and drive cross country and do nothing but add gas. The climate control would keep you comfortable regardless of the outside temperature, the engine will be fuel efficient, it could cruise all day long at 80. Yet no one would argue if you said that a BMW or Mercedes was a 'better' vehicle. Both would do the job of carrying you cross country. The Mercedes would have a nicer interior, probably a quieter ride, etc.

Regarding available boats:
When I search on Yachtworld for
Sailboat
40-42'
2010 or newer
$215K or lower 
USA East coast (from Florida to Maine)






Sailboats for sale in United States - YachtWorld


Find sailboats for sale in United States. Offering the best selection of boats to choose from.




www.yachtworld.com





I get 14 boats. 
7 are 'sale pending'
1 is a catamaran
3 have in mast furling
3 have traditional mainsails: 1 has shoal draft, 1 is an ex charter boat, 1 is the boat I'm buying.

I would have looked at the ex charter boat, that doesn't disqualify it for me, but it's about 300nm away from me, way up a river.

Barry



s_ruffner said:


> So, again, what do you mean by build quality? The hull integrity? The joinery? There's a constant implication that a lot of the newer production boats will crack up and sink when you get offshore in 2m waves.
> 
> Yes, a boat like that 386 is gorgeous (also has a more modern hull form), and is well outside of my budget!
> 
> I dunno, looking around on Yachtworld, BoatTrader, etc., I see plenty of traditional mains and deeper (>6') keels.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

Minnewaska said:


> I think the real drop was in the '09-'10 range, when they ditched real teak, etc.


So, I like teak (and re: Sabre: cherry!) a lot, but my wife thinks all these full-wood interiors are "dark and dingy". For me, as beautiful as teak is, I'd rather not have to deal with it for exterior maintenance...so again: build quality? An aluminum toe rail seems infinitely preferable to me.

To me, build quality is the engineering bit - assembly - and QC in manufacturing. I'm much more interested in a design that doesn't pose an inherent risk for water intrusion in the balsa sandwich than pretty joinery (this nixed a particular Pearson for me, and is an issue my friend with the 36-2 is dealing with). So, yeah, composite interiors? I'm down!


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

BarryL said:


> It's like cars. Any modern vehicle, like a new Hyundai Elantra, is very nice. You could jump in it and drive cross country and do nothing but add gas. The climate control would keep you comfortable regardless of the outside temperature, the engine will be fuel efficient, it could cruise all day long at 80. Yet no one would argue if you said that a BMW or Mercedes was a 'better' vehicle. Both would do the job of carrying you cross country. The Mercedes would have a nicer interior, probably a quieter ride, etc.


Right, I get you. I've been the owner of a great many used luxury cars, for just the reason you cite. I will always take a lightly used BMW (in part because I can actually do my own work) over a brand new Genesis (the Hyundai equivalent).

I kind of wondered, and then didn't say, if that Sabre had sound dampening in the interior? I mean: why not!



BarryL said:


> 40-42'
> 2010 or newer
> $215K or lower
> USA East coast (from Florida to Maine)


We are in the market for different boats. I'm looking <$100k (really, under $80k so I have money for a fancy electronics package). I'm looking <42'. The length is the difference in our searches. Your C&C is actually a good fit in a lot of ways.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> With all due respect, while there were some well engineered and well built Jenneau's before Beneteau bought Jeanneau, by and large, by the time Beneteau began investing in Jeanneau, the build quality had dropped considerably. It seemed like there was a sudden shift to better designs and better engineering once Beneteau bought Jeanneau. There is a tendencey in the general public to dismiss Beneteau's build quality, but my overall impression is that they do a very good job on both initial engineering and build quality control.


It's amazing what a fresh injection of capital will do for a company!

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

s_ruffner said:


> So, I like teak (and re: Sabre: cherry!) a lot, but my wife thinks all these full-wood interiors are "dark and dingy". For me, as beautiful as teak is, I'd rather not have to deal with it for exterior maintenance...so again: build quality? An aluminum toe rail seems infinitely preferable to me.


Ironically, I always gravitated to interiors that were full wood. They looked traditional and classy to me. As time has passed, I'm developing a similar sense to your wife. I still prefer real wood to composite, but more light is good. I'm not sure full on IKEA is my thing and that's cutting edge now, but lighter works.

Other than the cockpit table, I don't want any varnished teak outside anymore. Way too much maintenance and heart break, when it ultimately lets you down. Seems like a design trend now is to have a full fiberglass bulwark, instead of either a teak or aluminum toe rail and I actually like the bulwark substantially better than both. It's cleaner looking and more functional.


----------



## JohnBPrice (Aug 10, 2014)

Jeff_H said:


> ...by and large, by the time Beneteau began investing in Jeanneau, the build quality had dropped considerably. ... There is a tendencey in the general public to dismiss Beneteau's ...


Thanks. I see it is unfair to blame Beneteau for the decline in Jeanneau quality. I compare the newer Jeanneau's to my '86 and think "sure it is shiny, but it looks kind of chintzy" and blame new ownership when in fact as you say, Beneteau saved Jeanneau.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Ironically, I always gravitated to interiors that were full wood. They looked traditional and classy to me. As time has passed, I'm developing a similar sense to your wife. I still prefer real wood to composite, but more light is good. I'm not sure full on IKEA is my thing and that's cutting edge now, but lighter works.
> 
> Other than the cockpit table, I don't want any varnished teak outside anymore. Way too much maintenance and heart break, when it ultimately lets you down. Seems like a design trend now is to have a full fiberglass bulwark, instead of either a teak or aluminum toe rail and I actually like the bulwark substantially better than both. It's cleaner looking and more functional.


I have always liked the look of a nice dark teak as well. Our last boat had a lot of nice oiled teak...and it was very dark. We really like the the light wood colors in our current boat as it makes the boat bright and airy inside.

I agree on minimizing varnish work. We love our varnished cockpit table, but the teak toe rails, hand rails, and cockpit seats are all natural. Unfortunately I am not a big fan of the weathered teak look.

I actually miss the old school slotted toe rail on my old boat. It is nice to have so many attachment points for attaching blocks, tying things down etc. Our boat has long solid teak toe rails that I'm sure looked beautiful when new. Now I am wondering what to do with it to make it look better. Part of me wishes it had the synthetic toe rails that the newer generation boats have. They look like new teak, but they are a high density plastic that is very low maintenance. I also love our floors which look like teak and Holly, but are actually a very durable synthetic laminate.

I don't think modern materials are necessarily a bad thing, even if they do offend some people's traditionalist sensibilities!

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hey,

I'm not a fan of exterior wood. Well, I love it when it's on other people's boats and it looks nice and shiny.

Current boat:









And new boat:










Exterior wood hand rails, toe rail, rub rail, and cockpit table with varnished leaves. Not my first choice but what can you do? I plan on keeping the table varnished. It's not that big, I can keep it covered when I'm not on the boat and it looks nice. The handrails I'm not sure about. Decks, toerails, rub rail will be au natural.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SchockT said:


> Our boat has long solid teak toe rails that I'm sure looked beautiful when new. Now I am wondering what to do with it to make it look better.


I can't tell how behind they are, but if they got away from you and are bare wood, I'd sand them. You'd want to knock down the ridges in the grain so dirt doesn't accumulate. Scrubbing with a soft scotchbrite is best to keep them that way, as it doesn't get into the soft grain. If they are varnished and it blistered, same answer, just a ton more effort. I paid someone to strip it all off.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

One should also list boats by decade. Sabre does not to my knowledge build a sailboat any more. so not sure i would rate that brand in a list of boats to buy. C7C and Tartan have not been together for 5-10 years or so? so one can not say they are the same anymore. As I currently own an 85 Jeanneau, Some things are better about mine than newer ones. newest ones are better in other ways. 
At the end of the day, choose your poison. NOT boat is perfect, unless you have it custom designed and built, even at that, you will have to compromise on something. 

Marty


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> NO boat is perfect,


My boat is always perfect, after the third margarita.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Minne,

Keep thinking that way. in another 15 years when it is 20 yrs old, you may need to redo everything as I did to my Arcadia.
I still think my boat is a better sailing design, interior wood is nicer. BUT, it is cramped compared to the newer designs like yours of equal size. 
Unlike Shocks thought, the present day Performance versions are like the older mid 90s to "i"series SF boats. i dont think so! The current P models are like the std SO models of the time, the SF's are faster yet. My Arcadia is on par with an SF of that time frame. 
Some better some worst in ALL fo the manufactures from the 80s era to now, that are still around. WIth that said, i would like a SO349. But it needs another 6-12" of draft to around 7-7.5 ft and increase SA to 725-750, and lose 1000 lbs of weight! Now THAT would be a sweet sailing rig! My boat 40$ liighter has a max 550 sq ft of SA!

marty


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Yes the "P" models of the newer Jeanneaus are definitely closer to their SO counterparts, particularly in that they kept the traveller on the cabin top rather than moving it into the cockpit like they did with the SF. Making the SunFast a completely different product line was a good move. 

I have raced on an Arcadia like yours, and it was a lot of fun. We had a good crew, and we won our share of races. It definitely had some of the tendencies typical of boats designed in the IOR era. Believe me, the newer designs ARE sweet sailing boats compared to IOR designs. They truly are a pleasure to sail. 

The sa/d numbers between your boat and mine are not all that different, with the main difference being the small overlap headsail. Upwind that is a huge benefit as the boat is very easy to sail Upwind short handed. It has a bit less power off the wind, but that is what the spinnaker is for!







Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Keep thinking that way. in another 15 years when it is 20 yrs old, you may need to redo everything as I did to my Arcadia.


Lost something in translation. She's already 17 years old and has had many things such as rigging, lifelines, electronics, sails, thru-hulls, transmission, etc, etc, replaced.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

As boats age you need to do more "cosmetic" work... this is aside from keeping everything mechanical in top condition. Young boats tend to have their systems in good working order... and over time these systems age and have to be repaired and replaced. New boats get added gear which also ages and get replaced. New boats have easy cleaning... older boats need much more elbow grease... compounding and waxing... varnishing...

Shiva's "systems" are all working... so now I am focusing on the "brightwork" sort of maintenance... such as gelcoat repair... painting bilges...varnishing sole.

It never ends.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Minne,

Thought your boat was 5-10 years old....oops.....have another margarita on me! At 17 years, I'm starting my 2nd go around on things. After I first bought, and now again........

Shock,

I only know of one Arcadia up in BC, along with a rumored 2nd one. L'Arista formerly owned by Craig Basset is the one we both know about positive. Then there is supposed to be a blue hulled one up that way. I saw a for sale add one time. When I met Craig at the 07 rendezvous, he had heard of a blue hull one, but never saw it. 
He raced against two other Arcadias from down here. Sea Dog and Escape. Had never seen mine. Original owner kept her in South sound for the most part. No racing etc. I have not raced against the two down here. Both owners quit racing them in early 2000's. I bought mine in 05. 
Yes being a post fast net IOR version 3 half ton, she has done some IOR death rolls a few times. Otherwise, she behaves fairly well. My SA/disp is just shy of 25-1 with a full roaced main and 155, 18-1 with a main and 110. your boat IIRC is in the 20 to 22-1 relm. SF 35 and 37 also in the 25ish -1 relm. The 39iP is probably the best powered up model of the "i" series. The SF35 from previous versions. It local phrf is 15-20 secs a mile faster than an SF 37. which is on par with a 36iP.
I do feel the interior design is nicer from a user standpoint on newer versions. Sailing with a fractional rig is nicer than an overlapping headsail. BUT, being as many of the newest designs are relying on a Code 0 in lighter winds to move, IMHO, one is back to using a 155 genoa with more issues tacking etc than the fractional makes up for in the heavier winds. If the fractinal was in the 25-1 relm.......did not depend upon the 0 for light winds, that would be a better setup imho! We have to include a 0 as a headsail/jib down here, which throws out the advantage of that sail......not sure which is the best way to deal with this issue.

Good and bad about new and older rigs no matter how one slices it.

marty


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

blt2ski said:


> Minne,
> 
> Thought your boat was 5-10 years old....oops.....have another margarita on me! At 17 years, I'm starting my 2nd go around on things. After I first bought, and now again........
> 
> ...


Yes I raced with Craig on L'aristo for a few seasons. She was a good boat, although I do recall we ripped the genoa track right off the deck during one race....the bolts had corroded through. I wasn't a fan of that goofy little wheel he had, (I remember the edge of the lazarette locker had a notch in it so it would clear the wheel!) it definitely would have been better with a tiller!

That boat was the first Jeanneau I sailed on, and is one of the reasons I am partial to them! Later I raced on a SF37 and loved that boat! Not as fast as a Bene 36.7 but much nicer in my opinion. I was planning on buying a SO37 or SF37 until we fell in love with the 39i!

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Thought your boat was 5-10 years old....oops..


You may recall she was 4 going on 5 years old, when I bought her. Time flies. They haven't made my hull, since '09.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

BarryL said:


> Personally, I want a FAST CRUISER the 40' range..... but WAY out of my budget.


Ahhhhhhh!

So now we know! You want the Queen Mary for the price of a row boat!

Get the list of new 40 footers.

The one you buy easily is s****
The one you can _just_ afford is good quality. 
The ones you can't afford are better quality.

Stop injuring yourself and buy the best you can afford.

???


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Great thread since we happened to visit 4 of the boats mentioned, Hunter, Catalina, BENETEAU and Island Packet because we are in the market. 2005 Hunter 36 shoal draft, 1997 CATALINA 36 MK II, B411 &B393, 2000 IP350. The Beneteaus had numerous spider cracks in the cockpit and deck & rusty keel bolts. I discard them since neither boat was clean and in good condition. The Catalina and IP and Hunter have no stress cracks. All three are clean and look to be well taken care of. I drooled on the IP. All had conventional main sailing storage (not furling) the IP was a cutter with self tending staysail. I know the IP backs up with a mind of her own, the Catalina has a bow thruster. All are equipped with Yanmar engines. So the question is of the three (all shoal draft) which has the better sailing characteristics? Did I mention the IP has external stainless steel port lite frames and internal teak trim on the hatches? Ranking according to asking price its Hunter, Catalina and way out front the IP.


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

My guess would be the Catalina followed by the Hunter and then the IP in light to moderate air and 
IP's are not attractive with drool all over them although the drool probably dries up when those Catalina's and Hunters sail circles around them.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

In my admittedly limited experience, I've found that the IP's aren't the sailing dogs they are sometimes made out to be. There is no question that a modern Catalina or Beneteau will outpoint and outrun the IP in most instances. But that doesn't mean the IP is a dog. I've sailed on one twice: once in light air, and once with the wind blowing about 15 knots. In light air, the boat was predictably slow and a bit lodgy. Not as bad as some other full keel boats, but still no spring chicken. But on a beam reach in 15 knots? Man, that was fun. That boat was solid. It felt and looked bullet proof. And I really like the looks of IP (excepting that buff gelcoat). Not to mention the fabulous, but unstuffy looking joinery below. For awhile after that last sail, my dream was to buy an IP Estero and run off to the Bahamas. I still might be convinced that is a good plan.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

mstern said:


> For awhile after that last sail, my dream was to buy an IP Estero and run off to the Bahamas. I still might be convinced that is a good plan.


It is a great plan. Follow it. The vast majority of our sailing will be in the Chesapeake Bay so I'm thinking light air most of the time. Why can't I have the looks and fit of the IP with the performance of a Farr 40?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Skipper Jer said:


> It is a great plan. Follow it. The vast majority of our sailing will be in the Chesapeake Bay so I'm thinking light air most of the time. Why can't I have the looks and fit of the IP with the performance of a Farr 40?


It's more of a dream for me than a plan; the Admiral has no desire to do anything like that, so yeah. No. I'm working on the more realistic dreams of cruising Long Island Sound. There will be at least one weekend cruise this summer. I'm really hoping she likes it.

And if you want the looks of the IP with better light air performance, I'd check out the Seaward line of boats. They look very IP-esque above the waterline, but have a very modern underbody. In fact, they have a retractable keel that is perfect for places like the Chesapeake. Going into a shallow area? Retract the keel and get trailer sailer draft. Deep water? Extend the keel (a high aspect fin with a lead bulb on the bottom), and you get great upwind performance. In a weird twist, Seaward and IP decided a few years ago to combine their factories to save money. IP then pretty much closed its doors while the company was circling the drain; it wasn't until Seaward bought IP that the company was revived. Ironically, the current owners of the company (former IP dealers) bought the combined operation, and seem to have closed up the Seaward side of things. There used to be separate websites for the Seaward and IP lines; the Seaward address now directs to the IP site. Even if they aren't making new ones, there are used Seawards on the market. The 32RK was really my dream boat. Here's one recent review of the boat:









Seaward 32RK Is a ‘Thin-Water-Cruiser’ - Blue Water Sailing


The Seaward 32RK was designed and for years built by Floridian Nick Hake. The design is now part of the Island Packet company which builds the […]



www.bwsailing.com


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

your list eliminates a lot of boats, by banning brands. I'll be perfectly honest. I've found gems in every brand. These are personal likes right? 

But I noticed no Seaward/Island Packets. I really like those boats. But I doubt I'll ever own one, because my "need for speed," would likely make me unhappy with them.


----------

