# Why not a Beneteau?



## Pattyh (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi,

We plan to go cruising in a couple of years and just started our research on boats. It seems a number of people on this forum and others do not like Beneteaus. 

We plan on cruising along the east coast and the Caribbean. We would like to stay in the $160,000 price range and I really like the space of a 40 foot. We are both in our 50s and like the comfort. I looked at the 40 ft Beneteaus at Annapolis and really like what I saw. It seems we can get a much younger boat if we go with a production boat. 

Is a 25 - 30 year old Valiant, Island Packet, Bayfield, Tayana, etc, a better choice for the type of cruising we want to do than a 5 year old Beneteau?

Thanks for your opinions,

Patty


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I don't think your type of intended sailing makes a Beneteau, or any other production boat, a "bad" choice.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If you're just coastal cruising, then no... a Valiant, IP, Bayfield, Tayana, wouldn't be a better choice. These boats are more designed for bluewater voyaging than coastal cruising, and as such may lack amenities that a production coastal cruiser would have.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Keep in mind that a lot of the "brand bashing" is to some degree tongue-in-cheek and often more directed at the owner than the boat.

Some prefer Beneteaus for the tropics due to their un-cored hull construction. We have friends that winter in the Caribbean and sail a 2002 Beneteau 36.7 up and down the island chain each winter without issue, mostly double-handed.

I don't see any problem with a well-found Beneteau for the type of sailing that you are planning.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

You are going to do what Beneteau, Catalina, Hunter, Jeanneau had in mind for there boats. 

Look at what works for your style of cruising etc. I would suggest getting on boat sooner than later if you do not have any boating experience of any sort. If you have been on boats, then you will know more of what to look for/at, for your needs. 

marty


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

For what you are contemplating, I would expand my search to include the Catalina 400 and 42 as well.

While I'm not a Hunter basher, they don't do it for me asthetically, however they would also probably be up to the type of crusing you have in mind.

When buying a used production boat, you want the most pristine example available in your price range. Expanding the models you'd consider might mean ending up with a much better maintained boat af similar intial quality.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

GO FOR IT!!!!!!! BY ALL MEANS..IT's PERFECT FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO DO!!

IDEAL BOAT FOR THAT!!!!!!

GOOD LUCK!!

By the way..if you buy the Beneteau..guess what???

you get to use it sailing!! 

Yes..they sail...with the other "better boats", you can't sail....well...I'm leaving at that....before someone bashes me...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The downside to getting a Catalina 400 is that you'd have the same boat as Cruisingdad... and that's a huge negative for most people...    :laugher


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Confessions of a Beneteau owner. I was a naysayer and Beneteau basher and in 2003 went to Charleston to help a buddy sail his new 423 to Florida. I was there during the commissioning process and crawled through many new Beneteaus for two weeks. I was sort of looking for a boat to keep down south as I was tired of sailing my CS36 Merlin home every summer after wintering in the Bahamas. My initial thoughts were to buy an older boat and fit it out for cruising. Well, after looking at all those Beneteaus I ended up with a new 393. The dealer was excellent and made all the modifications I needed including a new double roller stemhead fitting. I've had four seasons in the Bahamas with the 393 and it's worked fine. Another member of our 393 group bought a used one in the Caribbean and sailed it back to Australia. These boats are tougher than most folks think. It'll be fine for what you want to do.

beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group
beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group


----------



## HerbDB (Sep 30, 2000)

A production model is the right type of boat for your purposes. We had similar intentions when we bought our last boat, a Beneteau 36 Center Cockpit. We have used her extensively for cruising the Chesapeake and finally made our dream trip down the ICW to the Bahamas last winter.

On the way down, we were limited to the ICW because of the weather. On the return, we had an excellent weather window and sailed her offshore from Florida to North Carolina.

It was a wonderful trip that we made just in time as health issues make a repeat trip unlikely and the boat is up for sale. For those interested here is a link to a photo record of our trip: Split Decision

Don't wait too long or the opportunity may pass you by. There are plenty of boats in your size and price range out there.


----------



## welshwind (Feb 27, 2005)

As an owner of a Beneteau 36CC, I love it. We do no blue water cruising, just what folks would term coastal cruising. It is perfect for that and for the fact that the features and space meets the needs of my Admiral and my crew.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

I have owned a Beneteau for 10 years witch we bought new. We have sailed her from the Chesapeake to Halifax. She is not as big as you are looking at. A bennie will serve you well!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

THere are many things to consider.

First, I own a production boat (Catalina 400) and just helped my dad pick out his Tayana 42. I agree that I would certainly take a hard look at the Catalina 400 and 42 before signing on the Beneteau. Not that one is better than the other, but you may find some things about each boat that appeals to you. What I like aboput my 400 is that she is a nice performing boat and fun to sail. Most important for us, especially with kids, is that she is very sure footed. We have two heads and a nice spac in the aft berth for mom and dad to escape the kids. She is a very comfortable "live aboard". Most of the systems are pretty accesible. The cockpit is awesome and one of the biggest sailing points. 

Negatives: Storage - of both goods, fuel and water. THe Beneteau is no better (and maybe worse). When you go to live aboard, you will need a LOT of space. Finding a spot for a washer dryer is a challenge that we will probably give up on (though you can do it on the 42). Some of our systems are hard to access also, like some of the water and septic runs. Another negative is the rudder is not very well protected. Any boat with a spade rudder is exposed, but most production boats are especially susceptible.

The Tayana 42...

WHat I like: Lots, and lots, and lots of storage. You cannot imagine all the storage on these boats. Stuff will get lost. Want a Washer/dryer?? Not a problem. Also, if you get the aft cockpit version, you will be able to walk through from the galley to the lazarette. ALL of your systems are VERY easily accesible, without any exception that we could find. The rudder and keel are exceptionally strong and the rudder very well protected. At 37,500 lbs dry, she will take a beating. She is a beatuful boat down below with lots of teak, and very comfortable in a rolling sea. In essense, this boat is built like a tank (and drives like one).

The Negatives...

Many of the things which make her "positives" come at a cost. For example, the cockpit is very small, as are the cockpits on most boats of this purpose. This is by design in case you take a breaker in the cockpit. Also, all the weight that makes her very steady and sure also makes her pretty slow. I have to blame some large portion of that on her displacement. Where my Catalina likes to run in the low 7's comfortably, you will push it to get her over 5.5 kts except in a blow. All of the storage takes away from living room down below. However, given the very easy access to systems and large tankage, it is a worthy trade-off for a cruiser.

I do not regret my purchase of the Catalina, however, give what I know now of the Tayana 42, I would have to sit down and think long and hard which one I would purcahse. The underlying issue for us is the kids and that fact that they need more space (and their own head, per their mother). Many/most cruisers do not have those concerns. 

In the end, I would urge you to at least look at a Tayana 42 (or similar) before signing on with any production boat. You will like (and not like) many things that you will see. Whether the trade offs are worth it is up to you.

- CD


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> (refering to the Tayana 42 )you will push it to get her over 5.5 kts except in a blow.


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Start a 100 mile trip with a new young wine...sell it as vintage wine on arrival!!!!!!:laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher

That's my point....exactly..these tanks are designed to take beatings...not to sail....


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Is there something to be said for sailing faster to get out of the way of weather? Or is that just an advertising scheme?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

By the way, I was pleasantly surprised with the parts supply service for my Beneteau. They were courteous, and relatively inexpensive. The guy on the phone also emailed me some schematics that I wanted.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Bene505 said:


> Is there something to be said for sailing faster to get out of the way of weather? Or is that just an advertising scheme?


It is not advertising if you are out of the weather!!


----------



## johnshasteen (Aug 9, 2002)

Bene505 said:


> Is there something to be said for sailing faster to get out of the way of weather? Or is that just an advertising scheme?


I hear that from the fin keel, spade rudder, fairly fast production boats and it's true, they *might* get out of the way of the weather. My experience, in two Force 10 storms, is that providence is never that kind to you. In the first storm, by the time we learned that the storm might hit us, we were 300 miles in any direction from safe harbor. In the second storm, in March of this year, same deal, no safe harbor that you could reach in a sailboat - regardless of how fast it was - even if we had made it into the ICW, we would have taken a terrible beating. Enduring those two storms over the years, I'm a firm believer in a strong bluewater boat if you are venturing far from harbors. 
On the other hand, if someone is going to do the kind of sailing that probably 95% of all boat owners do, I think a production boat is probably the best choice.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> Start a 100 mile trip with a new young wine...sell it as vintage wine on arrival!!!!!!:laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher
> 
> That's my point....exactly..these tanks are designed to take beatings...not to sail....


I have no doubt that in a stiff breeze that boat will run hull speed. SHe just does not do it in the typical 10-15 kts.

I actuallylike those boats a lot. There is a lot of storage and it is a very sea kindly and very comfortable boat down below. I also strongly feel that for any long distance passage, it is the better choice.

Just my opinions, as someone that has weekly experience with both.

- CD


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Without a personal weather router AND a fast boat I doubt the "run away from weather" factor is significant.

However if the faster boat will do a passage in 10 days less time than a "tank" that leaves the same day, statistically the quicker boat's risk of exposure would be reduced (depending on the weather systems' whims.)


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

IMHP my boat just goes to weather better than boat X buy at least 15 deg which just works out to whole lot less tacking when your trying to get some place


----------



## bshipp (Dec 18, 2004)

The Beneteau sounds fine for what you want to do. Since you mentioned Bayfield, I thought I would comment. After sailing a couple of fin keel boats for about 10 years I finally decided I wanted something with a little more under the waterline. I have a Bayfield ketch and I absolutely love it.


----------



## AllThumbs (Jul 12, 2008)

I don't know too much about them, but I think they make a sexy sailboat.


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

If I had your great choice to make, I'd look hard at the Beneteau 411. Perhaps from the early to mid 90's. There are many for sale all over the place and you should look very hard at the comparison between the new 40, 393, 423 and 411. Each model has many positives going for it but for me, I'd select a fresh water 411 for less than your budget. There is a very nice one at our marina in Holland, Michigan named Errol Flynn. She is on yachtworld.

Good luck!

121 Guy


----------



## PierreMundo (Nov 29, 2007)

The Beneteau is a good choice and seen everywhere here in the Caribbean. So parts are no big deal also. Go for a young one and not to big. Over 40ft everything is big and heavy and much more expensive. Look at stories, reports and reviews of the 393. It has one weel which I prefer over the 2 weels on the 40'.
Good luck.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PierreMundo said:


> The Beneteau is a good choice and seen everywhere here in the Caribbean. So parts are no big deal also. Go for a young one and not to big. Over 40ft everything is big and heavy and much more expensive. Look at stories, reports and reviews of the 393. It has one weel which I prefer over the 2 weels on the 40'.
> Good luck.


Dissagree on that one. I have owned 4 boats now, not counting the Tayana, and two wheels is a MUCH better arrangement. It gives you a better cockpit, redundancy, sit from the high side, etc.

Just my opinion - but contrary to yours (and why).

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Also gives you two wheels to jam, two steering systems to maintain, etc... 


Cruisingdad said:


> Dissagree on that one. I have owned 4 boats now, not counting the Tayana, and two wheels is a MUCH better arrangement. It gives you a better cockpit, redundancy, sit from the high side, etc.
> 
> Just my opinion - but contrary to yours (and why).
> 
> - CD


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

The only reason Beneteau puts two wheels on the 40 is so you can walk right in from the stern platform instead of having to go around the wheel. The again there's the story of the 473 that hit a buoy on the Cooper River in Charleston a few years ago. Owner was on one wheel, his buddy who was teaching him was on the other. Guess they each wanted to pass the buoy on a different side. True story, I was on the dock when she came in with the bashed in port side.
beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group
beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group


----------



## PierreMundo (Nov 29, 2007)

True CD. It has advantages. But on the Beneteau 40 I didn't like the floorshape under the wheels. I kept falling into the "holes". And I had to walk the whole day from one side to the other because of the Pilot controls which where only on the starboard side. I think a boat this lenght should not be so wide at stern. Single handed I had to walk a lot. Winch access is also much better. See photo on a 393. So I prefer the 393 cockpit over the 40.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Vasco-

I think you've hit on the reason CD likes dual wheels...so that Kris can actually control the boat while it looks like CD is at the helm.  :laugher



Vasco said:


> The only reason Beneteau puts two wheels on the 40 is so you can walk right in from the stern platform instead of having to go around the wheel. The again there's the story of the 473 that hit a buoy on the Cooper River in Charleston a few years ago. Owner was on one wheel, his buddy who was teaching him was on the other. Guess they each wanted to pass the buoy on a different side. True story, I was on the dock when she came in with the bashed in port side.
> beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group
> beneteau393 : Beneteau393 Group


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Patty...In response to your original question...I think a Benny 40 footer is very capable of cruising coastally and down through the island chains. I do think that they have some drawbacks as cruisers...shallow bilges, small tankage, exposed rudders, poor access to systems, that you should be aware of before making your decision. That said, many people are happily cruising on Benny's and similar production boats and they provide many benefits for living aboard that more traditional cruisers don't have. Ultimately, know the plusses and minuses and make your own mind up about what is important to you.


----------



## NauticalFishwife (Dec 12, 2007)

Take a look at the structure of a boat. There are some new boats out there that use U bolts for chain plates. Personally I wouldn't want to be caught in heavy seas with U bolts holding up my rigging. Shop smart and don't limit yourself to new boats. There are a lot of GREAT deals out there right now!


----------



## Pattyh (Sep 15, 2008)

Wow! Thank you all for the information. It was really great reading all of your knowlegable opinions. They gave me some new things to think about.

Patty


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

tjk, pick up line two!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PierreMundo said:


> True CD. It has advantages. But on the Beneteau 40 I didn't like the floorshape under the wheels. I kept falling into the "holes". And I had to walk the whole day from one side to the other because of the Pilot controls which where only on the starboard side. I think a boat this lenght should not be so wide at stern. Single handed I had to walk a lot. Winch access is also much better. See photo on a 393. So I prefer the 393 cockpit over the 40.


Nice pic.

I agree that a negative of the two wheel arrangement (at least on my boat) is that the engine controls are on the stbd side. It takes a while for those of us that are used to having them in the middle to get used to them.

Regarding the floorshape, I can see where that might be an issue. It is not on my boat, which is why I was commenting. I did not realize it was an issue on the Bene 40.

Nice family, btw.

- CD


----------



## painkiller (Dec 20, 2006)

Patty,

If you're looking at new boats, one thing to consider about the latest round of Beneteau designs is the lack of adequate grab rails in the cabins. They've become mostly decorative and you can't wrap your hands around them to grip. Also, once you get into the 40-foot range, the boats are wide enough to where they really ought to have a grab rail down the centerline, but they don't. The Jeanneaus are even worse, from what I recall. The grab rails up on deck aren't much better.

I can't speak for Catalinas or Hunters, but I suspect that they suffer the same problem but to a far lesser degree. Maybe CD or somebody can chime in with some fact on that.


----------



## fullkeel7 (Apr 16, 2008)

Patty,

I would agree that Beneteau's are great for coastal and island cruising. However, if there is any open ocean cruising in your future, there are better choices.

I'm no 'Salt' but have spent some liveaboard time on a B 50 and a B46 during the course of ASA training. The Bene 50 was in Hawaiian waters and the Bene 464(?) in New Zealand. Both had spacious interiors and were most comfortable and the sexy curves of the cabinetwork was easy on the eyes. In just about all sailing conditions we experienced (in some winds 20 to 26 kts and waves 6 to 10ft.), both boats preformed well except in following seas. I suspect it was the fin keels and spade rudders that made both, ill mannered in the following seas. At that time I loved it...the boat wore out the other two and I got to put 42 nms. at the helm on that last day back to Honolulu. The boat's bow was oscillating 15 deg. on both sides of the intended course. I finally found the 'sweet spot' though. Today, I would probably consider that a PAIN! 

This 'sailing thing' is chocked full of trade offs and compromise, so try not to get totally wrapped up in those 'condo comforts' and forget the need for stability in a seaway.

One other observation I made with my limited experience with Beneteaus, how would one repair any of those laminated curvy structures below or what would happen to them if they got saturated with water? Most ships components are built off the boat and looked complicated to repair should any damage occur. The soles of both boats squeaked so badly, no one was going to sneak to the head without waking up the whole crew at night!  

BTW, both had nice wide decks close to the cockpit so one could get real close to the lee rail to.....well....uke  

Good luck with your search. Bob


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I would reinforce the idea of looking at a good condition few-years-older Bene - I find the recent ones' layouts too open and the interiors too "Ikea Condo". On the new 40s and 49s though the cockpits are great and sightlines from the helms excellent, we found the side decks rather narrow due to the excessive width of the house. Top that off with the angular joinery, lack of grabrails and wide open cabin space (great at anchor but......) and I think some of the earlier editions of their cruising line may be more appropriate for your plans.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Faster said:


> I would reinforce the idea of looking at a good condition few-years-older Bene - I find the recent ones' layouts too open and the interiors too "Ikea Condo". On the new 40s and 49s though the cockpits are great and sightlines from the helms excellent, we found the side decks rather narrow due to the excessive width of the house. Top that off with the angular joinery, lack of grabrails and wide open cabin space (great at anchor but......) and I think some of the earlier editions of their cruising line may be more appropriate for your plans.


I agree. I like the older benes MUCH more than the new ones. Same for Catalinas - except the ones that have not changed (only ones I know of that have not followed the new trends are the 400, 42, and 470). Like you, Faster, I think the older boats were built better and with better quality.

Regarding the comment about buying a boat that does well on distant passage/following seas, remember the old adage (that is VERY true): You spen 99% of your time on the hook (or marina) and 1% going. Why buy a boat for that 1% unless you have to? (and in some cases, you do have to).

Just some thoughts.

- CD

PS I have been in those same conditions and fought the same problems. I think it is due more to the wide & flat stern that skims the top of the water (or runs in it) than spade rudder, etc.

Look a tthe stern of these two boats. One is a heavy bluewater cruiser, one a production boat (mine, a Catalina 400 and my dads Tayana 42). Notice how the stern of the tayana sweeps up (and yes, it is a canoe stern too which would really help in a following sea, but that is not my point). You will find many of the production boats flatten out at the stern and run in the water. I may be wrong, but I think that is why they do not do well in a following sea.


----------



## painkiller (Dec 20, 2006)

CD,

I thought the entire point of the wide, flat aft sections of modern boats was to enhance off-the-wind (and therefore following sea) performance by facilitating surfing. But maybe I'm confusing performance with a seakindly ride?

Popular folklore has it that boats are designed beamy and flat nowadays because the compressed schedules of workaday life mean that people don't have the time, patience, or need (because of the relative improvement in the reliability of marine engines) to beat to windward anymore when trying to reach that next anchorage. The wide, flat form gives lots of room down below while enhancing the off-wind sailing characteristics of the boat. A win-win for the modern sailor.

However, I admit to being the LEAST knowledgeable on such matters, so I'll defer to anyone that offers a plausible alternative.


----------



## LittleFlower (Jul 1, 2008)

I sailed on a Beneteau for the kind of sailing you are suggesting. I think you will be pleased with the boat. If you expect to loose sight of shore, then the Beneteau isn't the best option. However, Beneteau's are comfortable and you'll be happy with it. How long have you been sailing? 
Teresa 
sailingsimplicity.com


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

painkiller said:


> CD,
> 
> I thought the entire point of the wide, flat aft sections of modern boats was to enhance off-the-wind (and therefore following sea) performance by facilitating surfing. But maybe I'm confusing performance with a seakindly ride?
> 
> ...


Jeff is the best person to answer that, but I will give you my opinion which may be wrong.

If you pull the Tayana and look at her from the underside, you will see something of a v shape. THe stern pulls up out of the water. When we were in following seas in the gulf, we had almost no tail wagging. However, if you pull my boat or others, they have a flatter bottom that rolls along with the seas. When pitched, that exposes more of a flat, wetted surface to the seas and seems to provide a better point by which to "push" the boat - thus you get the tail wagging the dog. The trade off to this is that you get a longer waterline for theoretical hull speed and more room down below for creature comforts. I think it might also be argued that the flatter bottoms allow for a more sure footed boat verus the tender qualities felt in a round bottom.

My opinions, but I jhave always said that design is not my strongpoint. That is Jeff's gig and I would give way to his opinions on the matter over mine.

- CD


----------



## skyellab (Aug 7, 2006)

I love the engineering, handling and space of my Beneteau 46. I see very little obsticles as opposed to other boats I have sailed or looked into buying. 

You could spend many happy comfortable hours sailing this design. Not every lay out works for everyone but this lay out, boat and everything works well for me.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

This is an earlier post that I wrote on the subject of the current trend towards wider sterns and finer bows. Beneteau tends to employ world class designers and seems to care more about sailing performance than some of the other big volume builders. As I have mentioned before, I few years back I looked at a whole bunch of 10-12 year old boats built by the big three builders and Beneteaus as a rule, generally were in much better condition than the boats from the other companies. Anyway, here's the earlier article......


There seems to be a lot of discussion about why newer boats have wider sterns. There are a lot of reasons that modern boats tend to have wider sterns but increased accomodations is not necessarily one of them. More on that later. If we look a little bit of history, after the Fastnet disaster a lot of attention was focused on what makes a good seaworthy boat. Motion at sea became a popular research topic. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Hull</st1lace></st1:City> forms and weight distribution was studied in great detail. One of the trends that came out of all of that study was boats with longer waterlines and finer bows. Moving the waterline forward reduced pitching and making the bow finer reduced the impact with waves in a chop. 
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
As bows became finer the center of bouyancy moved aft as well. At first this produced boats that developed a lot of weather helm as they heeled and which tended to jack their rudders out of the water and wipe out easily. As designers got better at modeling hull forms this became far less of a problem. 
<o> </o>
This combination of fine bow and powerful stern sections were found to offer exceptional upwind performance and reaching speeds that are substantially higher than theoretical hull speeds. So this fine bow, more powerful stern hull forms were really a win-win design trend that offered greater speed, coupled with better motion comfort and seaworthiness. 
<o> </o>
In a past issue of Sailing World there was an interesting couple paragraphs dealing with theoretical hull speed which touched on the issue of theoretical hull speed as it relates to these new hull forms. I am quoting here:
<o> </o>
"Waterline's affect on hull speed is theoretical and not absolute. As a hull goes faster, the bow wave stretches to the point where the bow and stern wave become on wave cycle, whose wavelength is equal to the waterline length. This brings us to wave theory. "
<o> </o>
"The speed of a wave (in knots) is equal to the square root of the wavelength (in feet) multiplied by 1.34. If your boat has a waterline length of 32 feet, the theoretical hull speed is 7.6 knots. The waterline length is thought to limit the hull speed because if the boat goes any faster the stern waves has to move further back taking the trough between it and the bow wave along with it. As the trough moves aft, it causes the stern to drop, making the boat sail uphill."
<o> </o>
"Except for planning designs, sailboats typically can't generate enough power to go any faster and climb their own bow wave. But a boat with extra volume in the stern can exceed its theoretical hull speed because the extra bouyancy prevents the stern from dropping into the trough. By the same token, a fine-ended design might not achieve its theoretical hull speed if buoyancy in the stern is insufficient." (Written by Steve Killing and Doug Hunter).
<o> </o>
That said, as with anything in yacht design all things need to be done in moderation and no matter how theoretically good any design idea might be, it can obviously be taken beyond a reasonable moderation to the point that it becomes a bad idea. Unfortunately from my perspective that is occurring in the case of many of the newer performance cruisers. If you look at the Volvo 60, IRC, or early IMS race boat derived designs the transoms are not all that wide and the waterlines and flare are quite moderate. While these designs are fastest when sailed flat, they still are very easy to sail at reasonably large heel angles. Denr and I appear to be in agreement on the Open Class derived designs which tend to push transom widths to an extreme resulting in extremely large wetted surface, and poor handling without such remedial devices as trim daggerboards and dual rudder. 
<o> </o>
It is important to understand that it is much harder to design a good boat with a wide transom and fine bow than a more traditional hull form. These designs require more careful weight distribution and buoyancy distribution studies than more traditional designs. Sectional properties need to be more carefully configured as well. When done right, a properly designed fine bow, wider transom boat has no more tendancy to go down in the bow when heeled than a pinched stern boat (remember IOR boats had very pinched sterns and yet they were very prone to going bow down and wiping out with heel angle) and also has no more tendancy to wipe out. 
<o> </o>
But there is the rub. Proper design of fine bow, wide transom boats requires careful modeling at all heel angles and all pitch angles. It requires reasonable assumptions about loading and trim angles. Boats like the new Tartans seem to take on the wide transom look as a kind of fashion statement rather than as a carefully balanced design concept and as such seem to produce designs that are not all that great sailors in many of the repects mentioned above. 
<o> </o>
Beyond all of that, many new sailors seem to be unaware of the importance of weight distribution and trim angles. Traditional boats often carried 10% of their ballast as trim ballast that could be located as necessary to adjust the trim of the boat due to its state of loading. This is unheard of today. People tend to load boats almost haphazzardly thinking if the designer has created a locker then it is there to be filled with what ever fits regardless of its weight and position. 
<o> </o>
But all of that said, I do think that it is a bit of a stretch to say that these broader sterns solely resulted from trying to stuff in additional accommodations. I say this because as the stern gets broader, displacement is removed from the bow thereby reducing usable accomodations volume in the bow. If anything the accomodations are just shifted aft a bit. That is not necesarily a bad thing as the stern has less motion than the bow.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I did not find anything in there about following seas, Jeff.

I have moved this discussion to this thread for further comments. THose interested can follow it from there. I do not want to take over her thread.

- CD

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/sailb...8903-stern-designs-trade-offs.html#post401379


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

From Principles of Yacht Design, Lars Larsson and Rolf Eliasson, third edition, pp 95:

"A final point to mention is the balance between the forward and aft halves of the hull. Many modern yachts have very full stern sections, while the forward sections are very sharp. This may be good for the surfing abilities of the hull, but it is not good for the course stability when rolling. When the hull heels over, the centre of buoyancy moves much more sidewards in the stern than in the bow. The force required to move the volume of water sidewards comes from the hull, which by law of action and reaction is affected by the same force from the water, but in the opposite direction. The stern is thus affected much more than the bow, and the hull changes its course in the heeling direction. This happens, of course, both to starboard and port, and the hull becomes difficult to keep on course."


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CD...why do you have a radar reflector on your mast when you have that big one on your stern?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I think it should be noted as well that we're discussing immersed hull section here and that is why a canoe stern is of questionable utility in and of itself versus a transom stern. The portion of the canoe stern you see above the waterline serves no real purpose in 99% of sailing conditions and even the 1% where one might think it valuable might be properly questioned. The underwater hull form is another matter entirely.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

sailaway21 said:


> I think it should be noted as well that we're discussing immersed hull section here and that is why a canoe stern is of questionable utility in and of itself versus a transom stern. The portion of the canoe stern you see above the waterline serves no real purpose in 99% of sailing conditions and even the 1% where one might think it valuable might be properly questioned. The underwater hull form is another matter entirely.


My answer on the other thread.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Be nice Cam...every one knows that his FLIR beacon.  Mainly used by the local USCG and military planes since his boat is a KNOWN FIXED LANDMARK.



camaraderie said:


> CD...why do you have a radar reflector on your mast when you have that big one on your stern?


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

*Fugly!*

Well, from a purely aesthetic POV I think the Beneteaus are

*FUGLY!!! *
And don't even get me started on the Jeanneaus, their workmanship is awful. Freaking wood grain VINYL on the cabinetry!?

I think they have wayyyyy too much freeboard and beam. They just don't LOOK right. As I have said, (and to paraphrase someone I can't remember) If it LOOKS good it probably will SAIL good.

Think about the classic great boats... Hinckleys, Concordias, Masons, Hoods, the old Herreshoffs, etc. They all LOOK good b/c of that old rule about form and function.

Not that the Bennies won't sail well in some or most conditions, but I just can't get past their appearances.

(now watch, having said that I'll end up getting one in 5 years! )

Just my .02. If it suits your needs for cruising and it's what you can afford, go for it.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Couple of things to consider...

Most of the Bene's in the low 40' range did not have a separate stall shower. We didn't like that.
The Bene 42 CC does have that but most AC's don't.

Iron keel.


----------



## negrini (Apr 2, 2008)

Guys, I love this forum. There is never a simple oppinion, anything can be turned upside down and become a passionate oratoria. I agree Benes are great for costal cruising, but I've met hundreds of skippers delivering Benes all over the world, some on well above 200K miles mark. One point: I assure you they rarely take a coastal way ....


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

xort said:


> Couple of things to consider...
> 
> Most of the Bene's in the low 40' range did not have a separate stall shower. We didn't like that.
> The Bene 42 CC does have that but most AC's don't.
> ...


Yes, that's not my favorite thing. We took one of our heads and turned it into the shower. How? We put the wodden bench seat over the toilet and don't use the other heads as showers.


----------



## LJD (Oct 2, 2008)

We do mostly coastal cruising on the West Coast of Florida. We purchased a used 1994 Island Packet 40' four years ago. We absolutely love the boat. It is incredibly well made and to this day we continue to find features this boat has that I think sets it apart from the competition. We get great customer service support from the manufacturer even though we did not buy it new. I have owned Grand Banks, Cabo (power boat), Pursuits, Grady White, Boston 
Whaler, and Sea Ray brands. The only two manufacturers that hold a candle to Island Packet are Cabo (power boats) and Grand Banks with Cabo significantly better because they offer customer service after the sale much like Island Packet. Good luck and most importantly...get out there!


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Yes, that's not my favorite thing. We took one of our heads and turned it into the shower. How? We put the wodden bench seat over the toilet and don't use the other heads as showers.


how many heads do you have on your 50? I thought the 47 and up had separate stall showers.

on smaller boats like 40' the OP was asking about; conversions might be harder to do.

Our Endeavour has shower stalls in both heads. I'm using the forward stall as a hanging/wet locker.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

xort said:


> how many heads do you have on your 50? I thought the 47 and up had separate stall showers.
> 
> on smaller boats like 40' the OP was asking about; conversions might be harder to do.
> 
> Our Endeavour has shower stalls in both heads. I'm using the forward stall as a hanging/wet locker.


We have 4 showers, not counting the transom shower, which is cold water only. Each head has/is a shower. If we really start to do extended cruising, I'm tempted to turn one of them into a laundry room. As it is, we use one of the heads to store garbage. Here's the layout, only the crew cabin is a little different. It has one bunk on the starboard side and there's no head up there. Also, there's no divider between the forward cabins, making for a very large room that has easy access to the forward head (port) or the designated shower (starboard).










Se a good description of her here: Moorings 505

Taking a hot shower on a sailboat is _excellent_.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

owned a 393 for a few years and delivered quite a few french plastic fantastics, all these boats are much stronger then you think. I've had a twi F9-F10 mid atlantic and the boats were fine. They'll take you around the world if you want too. all boats have problems, Ive seen tayanas with mad osmosis and delamination decks curling etc.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

I think you're right, goboat. There are many "production boats" sailing across oceans. Usually boat losses are from inexperienced sailors rather than poor construction. However it is fashionable to bad mouth these boats and exclaim the wonders of full or modified full keel, canoe sterned slugs.  I agree that they might be more sea-kindly but in storm conditions no small boat in the ocean is comfortable. There are poorly built "bluewater" boats too. My friends Tayana 42's coachroof was lifting a few years ago. He contacted Harris, the designer and found out it had not been constructed properly, many of the interior components were not bonded correctly. So, you pays your money and you takes your chances.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

I bought a large Beneteau because I needed the space, not so much for bluewater capabilities.

If it came down to bluewater sailing, I wonder if -- for the same cost --you'd be better off buying a bigger Beneteau with your money or a smaller, traditional bluewater boat.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Vasco...I agree with youe opinion....about the Old shoe love here...here is not considered "chicke" to like newer boats, you know..designed to sail..

Here if you don't own or love Old Shoes..you are a bad sailor..a nobody..really

Better have a brand new beneteau than and 1985 old shoe that sails backwards


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Ok, Here is my 4 cents (converted from US 2 cents) Just about every anchorage that I stopped at during my Pacific crossing had at least one Beneteau, and at some they were in Plague proportions. One regular course of conversation between cruisers was noise. Everyone spoke of creaks, snaps and bangs within bulkheads and furniture. This covered every make and type of construction (except an almost empty steel 45') I didn't meet any Ferro boats. what was of interest was the coments of a Jeanneau owner who stated his Jeanneau was the least noisy or all the boats he had owned. I saw boats in the islands from all over the world, EVEN A 37' HUNTER. I did not think it prudent to mention their boats where unsuitable for ocean sailing.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

> I did not think it prudent to mention their boats where unsuitable for ocean sailing


Why do you think their boats were unsuitable - nautical snobbery. Your own posting disproves your thinking , the fact is benteau's and othere like them can quite happily sail around teh world. Does that make them bluewater ( well who knows!).

As to noise below. I went across the Altantic in a 20 year old Halberg rassy, log kneel, an example of a true blood "bluewater" boat, know what, the teak interior creaked so much you could hardly talk.!!.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Funny about the noise factor. We had a Bayfield 36 that was very noisy whenever the wind blew. When down below we always thought the wind was blowing much harder than it actually was. Plus, the interior did creak a bit when working in a seaway.

On our Freedom 45 on the other hand, she was not loud at all in the ocean (or anywhere else). About 80% of the way to Bermuda our mast step started to creak, and that actually was very loud and annoying. The end grain of the carbon fiber mast moving across the carbon mast step really made a racket. Sort of like finger nails on a chalkboard. Once rebed with silicone the whole thing was fine, but it did flip me out a little bit when it was happening.

We now have a Beneteau 49, and we haven't yet sailed it in conditions that would give me a good sense as to whether she will be loud or quiet at sea. I'll have a much better sense at the end of this coming summer, as we'll test her a little bit.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

DG

I know the feeling of the skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

a couple weeks ago, we were returning the boat home, and I had removed some tension on the intermediates...all was fine, till we started getting hamemred by large waves, and the intermediates on the lee side started going

up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....up the wave skweeeek...down the wave Swuuuuuk.....

for 2 whole days..my wife thought I was nuts, as I kept puttimg my ear against the mas, the boom, the stay, inside, outside...

Then I found it....finished...tightened the intermediates again


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Giulietta said:


> DG
> 
> I know the feeling of the skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek
> 
> ...


Giu... I think you missed that especially large wave that you hit half way through that - didn't it have a slightly different sound?


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

goboatingnow said:


> Why do you think their boats were unsuitable - nautical snobbery. Your own posting disproves your thinking , the fact is benteau's and othere like them can quite happily sail around teh world. Does that make them bluewater ( well who knows!).
> 
> As to noise below. I went across the Altantic in a 20 year old Halberg rassy, log kneel, an example of a true blood "bluewater" boat, know what, the teak interior creaked so much you could hardly talk.!!.


Sorry goboatingnow, I forgot to put the  at the end. If folks believed everything about what is suitable/unsuitable there would be no one out there cruising. I wear ear plugs when the noise gets too much. I have a head bulkhead with a dry joint and every now and then it would move and sound like a gun shot. I did a temporary fix by dribbling some sun screen into the joint.
__________________


----------



## buslog (May 26, 2006)

*Benetau*

Patty, I earned my ASA Bareboat in the San Juan Islands aboard a Beneteau 361 Oceanis. Let me tell you that the boat was fantastic and the cruising grounds were unbeatable.although in some ways tougher than others due to the hard, fast changing currents and eddies in the islands. While we didn't use the boat hard, such as pounding against heavy seas in a bash, she handled very well particularly against the changeable currents in the islands. Interior comforts were quite good with plenty of room for 4-5. I had every trust in the Beneteau design and so should you. This boat is much better than the one they gave to Marco Polo!

Tankage is a bit low for a cruising boat on open seas, but not really too much of a problem in the SJ Islands. You'll need to consider what you'll do about fuel and water going farther out. Make fuel and water usage plans and then think about the kinds of boats that have suitable capacities.

Lots of people will criticize the B but they are pretty boats, well designed (French, no less), and are comfortable. If you are not planning to be farther than VHF range of safety/rescue wherever you go, get the B. My other favorite boats in this price range are the older Passports, Bristols, and IP's. They will not be as cushy as the B, but will be comfortable.

Look out for equipment. This is a big deal. Do you want solar? SSB? Watermaker? Lazyjacks, Dutchman, furling main?Can you find a used boat so equipped? Think also about maintenance costs and how much work you want to do. My Hunter is mainly fiberglass, but my neighbor's Cheoy Lee costs $3500/year to professionally varnish. And, he has a full boat cover.

If I want to go with a real blue water boat, I'd want to put on lots of safety equipment such as life raft, EPIRB, water-makers (2 - one for boat, one hand pump for life raft), SSB, generators (wind, solar, diesel), you know, the list goes on.

Resale value: There are plenty of production boats in the Caribbean so when it comes time to sell it might make it easier. Or, you could always bring in new partners (like me) to share the boat revenues and expenses.
Here is a link to my training boat, check it out. We cruised some memorable places: CAUTION O NOT WORRY ABOUT EXPENSES, JUST BRING IN GOOD PARTNERS!



Pattyh said:


> Hi,
> 
> We plan to go cruising in a couple of years and just started our research on boats. It seems a number of people on this forum and others do not like Beneteaus.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

goboatingnow said:


> Why do you think their boats were unsuitable - nautical snobbery.  Your own posting disproves your thinking , the fact is benteau's and othere like them can quite happily sail around teh world. Does that make them bluewater ( well who knows!).
> 
> As to noise below. I went across the Altantic in a 20 year old Halberg rassy, log kneel, an example of a true blood "bluewater" boat, know what, the teak interior creaked so much you could hardly talk.!!.


Simon is a gentleman. He was being facetious.

- CD


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

In case you had to look up facetious:

facetious   Pronunciation [fuh-see-shuhs]

-adjective 
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark. 
2. amusing; humorous. 
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

I formally appologise, was reading the post too fast and mistook the comment


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am going to say again to consider what you are going to use it for and consider the costs to change it from that design.

Let's go through a quick list since I have been actively setting my boat up for long distance cruising - while helping my pops with his. My pops is a Tayana 42 (which does not have any of the associated problems that were mentioned earlier). My boat is a Catalina 400. 

I have:

1) Glassed in for a generator. This ate up a lot of space in the lazarette. The Tayana had twice the generator put in and has a LOT more space left over. 

2) Added cabinetry. Here is a real downfall for production boats - storage. If you think your production boat has sotrage - think agagin. GO walk a Tayana, a Taswell, a Valiant... etc. You will LOSE stuff in those boats. I am not kidding. Production boats are skimpy on cabinetry because it is expensive and it closes in the space around you. Since most people do not take their production boats long term cruising, it is a waste of money and a deterrent.

3) Systems access. I have found one of the biggest plusses of a "Tayana" type boat versus a production type boat is access to systems. THis is critical. You will be pulling water pumps and new wiring and accessing your tanks, etc. Most of the production builders put these partially (if not completely) under the liner and behind furniture which makes it very difficult to get to.

4) Rudder. Sorry. That is a big one. I have to come up with some sort of rig to steer the boat in case of failure. You lose your rudder you are in deep trouble. Most production boats don't even have skeg hung rudders. That is a concern. Hopefully it is something you will never have to worry about, but it is possible - especially when going over reefs where there is little clearance. You will find many of these reefs and shoals move and judging the height is very difficult. And I cn guarantee you that you will run aground sooner or later.

5) Water and fuel. I feel that a water maker can help to alleviate some of the water concerns. However, you are going to have to find a way to come up with more fuel. You can either mold in another tank or (what I am about to do) add a bladder or two. Many people will line the catwalks with gerry cans (which I have done too), but we were also in a storm once that made me rethink that philosophy. We are lucky the lifelines and/or the cans were not torn loose.

6) Portholes. You might consider changing them to portholes you can screw down like are used on most (if not every) "bluewater" boat.

7) Grounding your boat. I do not think any production boats are grounded.

8) Lifelines. You will find most production lifelines are short (knee height... I forget the measurements) versus the bluewater boats which strike you at the side.

9) Sea berths. You can convert some production boats to a good seaberth midships. We could ours and was one of the principle factors in choosing it over a 42 and some other makes which curve their settees.

10) Great handholds... all the way down the cabin. Don't even get me started.

11) Dorade venting. You will find that when in the warmer climates and in a storm or just in seas with a lot of spray, dorades are a life saver. If you leave the hatches open you will be getting spray down below. In a storm, you simply should not leave them open. It does not take long for it to get reall stemy down there. THat sure does not help for comfort (those cooking or sleeping while off watch) and SURE DOES NOT HELP WITH SEA SICKNESS.

12) Propane tanks/storage. How much propane do you carry? You better have a bunch or more than one locker with a tank.

13) Small Lazarettes. You will need a lot of space in your garage. There simply is no changing this. Few production boats can boast the lazarette that is pretty common on most bluewater boats.

Now, the vast majority of these things I have mentioned are "fixable". THey are things you could do yourself. Some you may find more important and necessary than others - depending on where you are going to go. However, there is more to the productio nboat/blue water boat than simply design (which I stayed away from for the most part). Now once you add up the cost of changing/adding a lot of these systems, you must now ask yourself if you would have been better off (ie, cheaper) just to buy a boat where all of this (and many other things) are done already and you may get the benefit of volume pricing. 

I am not beating up production boats. I am not saying you have to do any of these things. I own a production boat and am going cruising on her with my family (wife and 2 kids). I am only trying to point out some things I have learned between the boats as someone pretty darned familiar with both. Everyone thinks their boat is best and that is fine. And in all of this, there are also some great advantages to a "production" boat over a bluewater. Just a few of these are:

1) Price.

2) Performance. I find many/most bluewater boats are S-L-O-W.

3) Liveability. That is the focus on a productio nboat is comfort at the marina and anchor. THat is also where you will spend 99% of your time. THink about that before you buy a bullet-proof shoe box.

4) Parts availability and owners groups. SImply due to the volume, I always know I can get answers from other Catalina owners on my boat. I can also pick up the phone, 5 days a week, and call Gerry or Frank or Warren at Catalina and get detailed answers. That is not an option for many other boats where many are not even be produced anymore.

Boats are tradeoffs. Buy it for the intended purpose. If you want to do more than its intended purpose, just be aware of the difficulties you will encounter. Many of them are listed above.

- CD


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> I
> 
> 2) Added cabinetry. Here is a real downfall for production boats - storage. If you think your production boat has sotrage - think agagin. GO walk a Tayana, a Taswell, a Valiant... etc. You will LOSE stuff in those boats. I am not kidding. Production boats are skimpy on cabinetry because it is expensive and it closes in the space around you. Since most people do not take their production boats long term cruising, it is a waste of money and a deterrent.


CD,

Have you ever been down below in a B393? Lots of cabinetry and very good storage. The whole starboard side of the saloon is cabinets. Full length drawers under the forward pullman berth. Great big cockpit locker. Two lazarette lockers. And a deep bilge under the floorboards where I've got four great big Rubbermaid tubs. I know it's the usual knock on Catalinas that there is meager useful storage especially cabinetry but most Beneteaus have pretty good storage. The pic is of the starboard side, all cabinets, it runs another two feet forward. Sorry, I didn't have a wide angle lens to get it all in.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Vasco said:


> CD,
> 
> Have you ever been down below in a B393? Lots of cabinetry and very good storage. The whole starboard side of the saloon is cabinets. Full length drawers under the forward pullman berth. Great big cockpit locker. Two lazarette lockers. And a deep bilge under the floorboards where I've got four great big Rubbermaid tubs. I know it's the usual knock on Catalinas that there is meager useful storage especially cabinetry but most Beneteaus have pretty good storage. The pic is of the starboard side, all cabinets, it runs another two feet forward. Sorry, I didn't have a wide angle lens to get it all in.


Hi Rick,

Absolutely NO comparrison to a Tayana or Taswell. For example, you can literally crawl under my parents sink, sit up straight, close the door behind you, and stretch out. The cabinets in the salon are deep enough to put a clothes dryer in (I know this since that is what we are about to do). The areas under the berths (both V and aft berth) are completely open. I have been on many of the models of Beneteau - not all of them. Although it may have more cabinets than my 400, I really do not know without comparing it by walking through. Here is a pic of the Tayana:










Here is a pic of the cabinets in our galley (excuse the galley winch!!! HEHE!):










Here is stbd cabinetry in the salon. THere is nice storage under the sette where Kris is sitting. It is all open. THere are also cabinets on either side of her.










Here is horrible lack of cabinetry in the Vberth. It is attrocious. We have a locker on the port side and a large storage (was drawers) under the V. I am currently building cabinets to line the V for the boys. It is bigger than it looks in the pics.










In all, teh cabnitry is ok on the 400, but nowhere near the cabinetry of a Tayana, etc. Let me also point out, the new Catalinas are basically devoid of any real cabinetry. It is terrible. The only exceptions are the 400, 42, 470, and the 440. The others have been modified and they have taken out a LOT of the cabintry. SO you may be comparing the new Catalinas to the Benes which I agree are not what the old ones were.

- CD

By the way I have to ask, what are these? Is this marine grade equipment? Now you do not wear those swim trunks and drink out of that Spiderman sippie cup in public, do you!!!??? HEHE! I am just joking you, Rick!!!! But I had to say something!!!!:


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Yes, the Spiderman sippy cup is mine. I only use it when the seas are over 25 feet.  Don't like spilling my juice. Also have to say the bathing suit is mine since my wife has seen the picture.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Vasco said:


> Yes, the Spiderman sippy cup is mine. I only use it when the seas are over 25 feet.  Don't like spilling my juice. Also have to say the bathing suit is mine since my wife has seen the picture.


HEHE! Well, at least you can sip your juice in style, eh?

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Does she know you dress in drag swimwear???


Vasco said:


> Yes, the Spiderman sippy cup is mine. I only use it when the seas are over 25 feet.  Don't like spilling my juice. Also have to say the bathing suit is mine since my wife has seen the picture.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

I thought you had to keep sippy cups in winch handle holders, like Giu does with that baby bottle.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

Having Owned a beneteau 393 and sailed many others and recently I am looking at a "bluewater" boat so I have crawled through teh usual list , Tanaya, passport, HR etc. I wouldnt agree length for length that the storage is much different, hulls with more dead rise at the max beam like the tayanas etc will inherently have more storage, however then tend to narrower of beam.

A production boat is a just that its built to a price and contains a set list of features applicable to vast majority of purchasers, weekend sailers. Comparing it to a Tayana ( however I have my views on Taiwan and Chineese built stuff!). which is a semi-custom boat typically costing twice as much is ridiculous. The fact is that Beneteaus are well built capable of handling more weather then you will and have plenty of stowage. I have seen them with additonal water tanks, watermakers, generators etc. IF I was buying a Beneteau I would look at a 411, also the older Bavaria Ocean range is also a good boat.

The big advantage is you get a boats built in the thousands, with good deck hardware and its all a known quanitity. Dont get het up with the "bluewater" boat debate. good sailers can get a bathtub around the world, bad ones cant get the most seaworthy around the next headland.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

One of the great things about modern times is the ability to leverage mass production to your advantage. 1) For an unbelievablly low price I can buy a car that can serve me for over dozen years. This advantage and reliability is true for generators, GPS systems, cell phones, movies, food, diesel engines and sailboats too. 2) Because there are so many built, more time can be spent on design. So you can get a product that's better thought out. 3) The people who work on these boats can specialize on the particular area they are good at. 4) Because the flaws and shortcomings in all these products become well known over time, they can be redesigned and refined to a high degree. 5) There are other things good about them, like ability to resell and parts availability.

The question is, if there is a mass produced boat that will meet your bluewater needs. *Will a bigger (and beefier) Beneteau handle blue water as well as a smaller custom boat with a similar purchase price?* It will cetainly have more storage space, and more redundent systems. Or at the very least, with the money you save you could put redundent systems in.

My 2000 Beneteau 50 cost me less than a lot of smaller custom boats She is pretty beefy as far as I can tell and has all the storage space I need. She holds 268 gallons of water, 160 gallons of fuel and has a nice 72+ HP Perkins Sabre engine. There's space (and weight allowance) for a good liferaft, a dingy that can hold everyone, extra ground tackle, extra batteries, solar panels and wind generators.

In order to start sailing blue water, do I need to consider trading her for a smaller custom boat? (Serious question, not being facetious.)


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Bene,

You'd want to trade in all that for why? A family of 4 near me just got back froma 2 yr trip around teh pacific rim with a Jeanneau 49iP. This fellow had his choice of boats to a degree, as he is the owner of a dealership that sells Jeanneau, C&C, Tartan, X yacht, Dehler, nauticat to name the new boats they sell. He took a Jeanneau. Not one of the better respected boats on this forum.

Others on here also sail Bene's and Jeanneau's just fine on the oceans. IIRC the recent ARC around the world cruise, 50% of the boats are either Bene's or Jeanneau's! Not that 6-7 of 13-5 boats is a lot, but a reasonable number. 

If it works for you, use it, do not look back. Modify what needs modifying for your use, as you would probably modify one of those old shoes to suit your needs too!

There was a recent trans atlantic race, 15 were the brand new Jeanneau sunfast 3200's racing. took most of the top places too. 

Reality is, many production boats can be used off shore, and do well. As long as you are not trying to sail thru katrina on a daily basis. And ost of us should be able to bypass that type of an area, or figure out how to buckle down when in an area like that during the hurricane season.

marty


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

Bene505 - I believe that you have it right, with a solid 505 to start from, you have a platform which is sufficient. The design is well-proven and seaworthy and once you get to where you are going the comfort of a 50-footer is going to be superior to what you'll find in a more classical full-keel double ender 40 footer. I am a firm believer that money invested in meteorological training and information systems or in direct communication with a weather router will go a long way in making the most speed and least heavy weather in passages. Even the big jumps across the puddles are now sufficiently covered by weather satellites so that big weather systems are detectable early and the hull speed of a 50 boat (vs. a 30-some footer) is going to be sufficient to flee or avoid these big ones. Smaller systems or fronts are mostly unavoidable but unlikely to be as ferocious or long-lasting as the major ones.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

The other fact is that theres no real evidence to suggest that long keel, large wetted area huls are anymore seaworthy then modern underwater profiles. The have to be sailed differently thats all. Equally theres nothing to suggest a Tayana is "actually" stronger then a beneteau. Things like laminate thickness in certain cases can just produce a heavy boat thats all. 

Most bluewater arguments come down to individual perspectives, beliefs and marketing. Beneteaus will get you to wherever you want to go. just bear in mind what they are and are not.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks for the input. I was figuring something like that. And she is so sweet to sail. I ought to measure the wind angle regarding this next part. If memory servers, we had her sailing so high into the wind that we should have brought the jib sheets inboard of the shrouds. This was sailing into Lake Montauk, where you have to sail a route that looks a bit like a question mark. 

I can't wait to do more ocean sailing next year, or some more BFS in Long Island sound. This winter will be one of preparation -- diesel classes (see davidpm's thread), rig inspection, life raft inspection, spinnaker repair, fixing a head, putting some new seacocks. I'd like to get everything back to 100%. I also plan to install my fourwinds wind generator, which will require a new charge controller.

I'm thinking of doing the around-long-island race or some other races to build more ocean time. I'll be looking for experienced crew when the time comes.


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

Bene505 - When you are looking for crew for that around LI race, keep me in mind. Missed your last trip, but I would love to try your next one. She sounds like a sweet ride.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I have heard talk from a couple of people that the newer Beneteau's now coming out of the factory are not being made to quite the same standards as those 5 -10 years old? Do those in the know, feel there is any truth in this??

Recently A 6 months old Beneteau I was on here in Oz was very noisy under power, The reason? Apparently all the engine bay insulation had to be removed when it was put into charter. The charter surveyor put a lighter to the insulation and it went up in flames. He said he had spoken with the factory about the issue previously but boats were still coming out with this type of insulation still being used.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

If that's true I want to send them an earful. Which charter company was it in Oz? Here's the email I just sent them:



> I heard online recently that the engine compartment insulation is now flammable. Is there any truth in this whatsoever? Has it been addressed? Was there any recall or other notice provided to owners? And is my sailbout affected?
> 
> Here is what I received:
> 
> ...


Again, if that's true I want to send them an earful. Which charter company was it in Oz?


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I just want to clarify this by saying that this is just what was told to me, Its hearsay, and NOT a statement of unequivocal truth......I am not a Beneteau expert and don't have first hand knowledge of their manufacturing practices.....It is just something I heard, nothing more, nothing less. 
I am interested to see what you hear back however. 
The yacht in question was specifically a Cyclades 434. Maybe it is a problem only with the cheaper made Cyclades series?? 
I will PM you the name of the charter company, and any other specifics, I don't want to mention someone's small business in such a public forum as this and risk affecting their livelihood....


----------



## skyellab (Aug 7, 2006)

chall03 said:


> I just want to clarify this by saying that this is just what was told to me, Its hearsay, and NOT a statement of unequivocal truth......I am not a Beneteau expert and don't have first hand knowledge of their manufacturing practices.....It is just something I heard, nothing more, nothing less.
> I am interested to see what you hear back however.
> The yacht in question was specifically a Cyclades 434. Maybe it is a problem only with the cheaper made Cyclades series??
> I will PM you the name of the charter company, and any other specifics, I don't want to mention someone's small business in such a public forum as this and risk affecting their livelihood....


I have a year old 46 foot Beneteau and I find it quiet, better built than the older ones and a pleasure to be on when ever I have the time.

Any boat is only as good as the amount of time you use it. Not all layouts of all boats are perfect for all people. :hothead


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Don't confuse quality production boats with Cementalinas. 

I think you are right on so much of this, but I do disagree with a couple of things. For instance, access to systems is a problem on all boats, production or not. Indeed, newer production boats are much better at this (I have never seen a boat with better systems access than the IPs, and that incudes Hinckley, Alden, Shannon, etc.). From my own personal experience, I had to pull apart just about the entire interior of our Freedom to get the fuel tank out when it went bad, I had to lean over the engine to get to the domestic water pump, and there were a few other nice ones (though generally the boat had good access to things I thought). On our new Bene, all the tanks come out easily, all the connections for hoses are easily accessible. I can get at all the pumps, wire hookups, machinery, etc., with a fair amount of ease (the one thing that looks to be nearly impossible is the raw water pump, so changing the impeller ought to be a treat). I think the better production builders no longer bury important stuff under a hull liner.

On the storage, I think that depends on the boat. It's physics, so a 42' boat with an 11' beam simply cannot have more space than a 42' boat with a 14' beam. The smaller boat might use the space better, or it might choose to devote more of that space to storage, but then it has less space elsewhere. Simply must be the case as a matter of physics.

We have great lazerettes on our Bene by the way. Much better than the Freedom.

Now, all that said, I think that the higher end boats you are referencing are better built. They just are, in my view. And I'm not talking about hull thickness. The joinery work is better, the interior tends to be made of better materials and higher grade wood. The fit and finish just tends to be nicer. Details seem to be looked after a bit better, and things like that. But, as you noted, that comes at a cost, and that cost usually translates into dollars, rarely means better performance (not to be confused with a better motion, as that varies tremendously based on the boat's design, including its intended use; there are many high-end expensive performance boats that are built to fantastic standards, but they're uncomfortable as heck), and often takes away from living space.

So in the end, I'm not sure of the point of my post (I've been boxed out of posting for a few days due to a technical glitch, so I'm going through babble withdrawal), cause I do agree with your basic point -- production boats do plenty of things well, and they perform their basic mission better than higher end boats do that same thing (short to medium distance and coastal cruising), but higher end boats are built better and they have several advantages too.



Cruisingdad said:


> I am going to say again to consider what you are going to use it for and consider the costs to change it from that design.
> 
> Let's go through a quick list since I have been actively setting my boat up for long distance cruising - while helping my pops with his. My pops is a Tayana 42 (which does not have any of the associated problems that were mentioned earlier). My boat is a Catalina 400.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bene323hfxns (Feb 2, 2009)

*Beneteau 40*

I have been on a Beneteau 40 a couple of times and I really like the boat. The cockpit is fantastic, and it seems really comfortable down below. My next door neighbour is our Beneteau dealer (we bought a Beneteau 323 from him) and the only weaknesses is he said that if you are planning to spend a lot of time cruising 6 months to a year, its a little light on storage space. Throughout the Beneteau line, they have traded off interior volume for storage space, which is a tradeoff most owners do mind because most people use the boats for coastal cruising.

Aside from the storage piece, I really like the boat and they sail well. Amazing cockpit for entertaining, blew me away.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

danielgoldberg said:


> On the storage, I think that depends on the boat. It's physics, so a 42' boat with an 11' beam simply cannot have more space than a 42' boat with a 14' beam. The smaller boat might use the space better, or it might choose to devote more of that space to storage, but then it has less space elsewhere. Simply must be the case as a matter of physics.


daniel...it is not physics. Physics has THREE dimensions in North Carolina! 
We call the 3rd dimension "freeboard" and it can indeed make a more narrow beamed boat roomier (i.e. cubic feet)...especially when the smaller beam is carried aft. 
Just thought New York should know about this new discovery! :laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

For storage on our Beneteau 505, we have the crew quarters up front. We call it the "garage". Last summer we sailed to Block Island with a 7'2" surfboard and all the pieces of our sailing dinghy up there (except the dinghy), along with other large things. We still had plenty of room to spare. Of course, you have to climb down the ladder to get to it all, but that's fine for things you don't retreive frequently.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> daniel...it is not physics. Physics has THREE dimensions in North Carolina!
> We call the 3rd dimension "freeboard" and it can indeed make a more narrow beamed boat roomier (i.e. cubic feet)...especially when the smaller beam is carried aft.
> Just thought New York should know about this new discovery! :laugher:laugher:laugher


A recent immigrant to NC proving that old dogs can indeed learn new tricks.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

CD makes a good point in his contrasting of storage between the Tayana and the Catalina, and the comparison is valid for other boats venturing offshore. There's a trend towards big, open salons with a paucity of any railing/handholds, etc...as well (a tip of the cap to Painkiller's point) that are just wonderful for quayside living. At sea, all that space is useless. The Tayana looks relatively cramped below because that space is absorbed by cabinetry and tall bilges wherein the storage necessary for the stores required for long passages resides.

Coupled with the lack of handrails, some of these boats seem to think sharp edged cabinetry is stylish. The two are merely dangerous and a concussion in the waiting.

Where are 400 pounds of canned goods to go on some of these boats? On a pallet in the middle of the salon? (g)

Don't get me going on liners.


----------



## nk235 (Apr 8, 2007)

Bene505 said:


> For storage on our Beneteau 505, we have the crew quarters up front. We call it the "garage". Last summer we sailed to Block Island with a 7'2" surfboard and all the pieces of our sailing dinghy up there (except the dinghy), along with other large things. We still had plenty of room to spare. Of course, you have to climb down the ladder to get to it all, but that's fine for things you don't retreive frequently.


Bene505 - Where is your boat located in New England? I saw from earlier in this thread you are on the Sound?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

The boat is in Glen Cove right now, on the hard. We sail around CT, RI and NY once she gets back in the water. Big trip this summer to Nantucket that we are all looking forward to.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

I do not have any experience on recent Beneteaus but I have sailed a fair amount on an eighties vintage First 42 and it is a great boat.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Bene505 said:


> The boat is in Glen Cove right now, on the hard. We sail around CT, RI and NY once she gets back in the water. Big trip this summer to Nantucket that we are all looking forward to.


Nantucket is great. Maybe it would be a long ride but the Figawi race from Hyannis to Nantucket on Memorial day weekend is a great way to start the season.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Bene505 said: "One of the great things about modern times is the ability to leverage mass production to your advantage."

Bene, this is such an important - and unpopular - point to make!
Oh boy, am I going to get into trouble now!
Crikee!
Don't know if I dare go further.
Hopefully nobody is listening.
Oh boy!

Well, here is: The more you travel, the further you get, the more crucial will be access to parts. Not to detract from the old salts who could fix just about anything with a kitchen knife and some chewing gum, the fact is most of us are easily stumped when things break. And they do, on all boats.
So, given a choice, would you prefer to own that one-off ex-Fastnet racer from the 1970s, or a Beneteau? Would you like to know there is a dealer not 5000 miles from your anchorage? Would you like the manufacturer to actually have a service network, and to use the whole spectrum of mass-produced fittings from other mass-producers of winches, autopilots and genoa tracks?

I would. In fact, I'd go further: My Ovni is not quite "standard" enough. Sure, they build some 80-100 boats per year and has built for 30 years, they do have dealers in many countries, you do find the big brand names on components throughout the boat. Yet, Beneteau has more, obviously, with several thousand boats sold each year. 
This means that not only the oldest guy in the marina, but loads of folk around you will know the anodes you need, the oil filters and bolts for the steering. It is fairly likely that you can source the components not too far away. 
One more thing - there is always one more thing - there is some chance that the shipyard can provide manuals, not mere sketches from a boat *almost* like yours - they made the manual before someone had good ideas and made the next dozen boats differently.

As I said, this probably goes against the grain of every sailor from the hard school, it makes me a wimp. Worse, some out there will scream that I missed the whole point: boats are for working on, not for sailing. They are the hobby to take you away from the office and wife. They are the proof of your manhood.

Confession: my boat isn't. I just want to sail it.
And if I had to move in one or the other direction from what I have, I would seriously consider the Beneteau.

You don't know where I live. I am not telling you. I wear a whig and fake moustache now, but I had to say this.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> daniel...it is not physics. Physics has THREE dimensions in North Carolina!
> We call the 3rd dimension "freeboard" and it can indeed make a more narrow beamed boat roomier (i.e. cubic feet)...especially when the smaller beam is carried aft.
> Just thought New York should know about this new discovery! :laugher:laugher:laugher


Touche!

But that said, go find me a narrower boat that has higher freeboard (that isn't a Buccaneer)!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Older Beneteau First 42*

Have sailed my 1985 First 42 from Desolation Sound, BC to Zihautanejo, Mexico and would not trade her in for a heavier "blue water" boat ever. Crewed on an Island Packet 45 from Saint Thomas to Norfolk for 12 days and though the boat was solid and roomy and comfortable she was a compete dog sailing. If you feel the need for a little speed or if you love the sensation and "wheel feel" that is sailing to me - then stick with a quality builder with designs that are meant to sail better than most.

Check out the latest Practical Sailor and the article on design - very interesting.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

danielgoldberg said:


> Touche!
> 
> But that said, go find me a narrower boat that has higher freeboard (that isn't a Buccaneer)!


MacGregor26x!


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

He meant a sailboat.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Reinel or some spelling there of made a boat that might fit the requirements!


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

OK, the Womboat is 34' Steel. Brick Outhouse. Ironically enough however below the water she is fin keel skegless rudder. 

Having spoken with a number of designers I am now firmly of the opinion that the skeg issue is a furphy. Many are the skegs that are as useless as can be. A lot of them are simply there for effect and indeed there are cases where skegs have separated from the hull leaving the rudder intact. 

My belief is that the rudder construction is what's important and that a well designed and constructed rudder does not need a skeg. 

I'd also note that on the two occasions I have had the old girl aground and the one occasion I ran my PB up it was the keel and not the rudder that got walloped. Yes they were all soft nudges onto sand but the point is still valid. Run aground and you hit your keel, not your rudder. 

Yes, if you are hard aground and lie the boat over you might have more serious problems but most times , particularly on coral, its a crunch only.

Now, beyond, that.....my search for the new Womboat has been largely in the area of large fin and skeg rudder cruisers of the Valiant (generically speaking) type. This encompasses Valiants, Tayanas, Passports, Noresman and the like. All of these are considered big heavy offshore cruisers but might I also remind you that 20 - 30 years ago many of these boats were frowned up by the traditionalists who considered anything less than a full keel to be undesirable. Early Beneteaus would have been laughed at.

Today, the early Beneteaus are spoken of in terms of 'they don't build them like they used to' . No they don't and in many cases for good reasons.

Earlier this year Wombette and I spent some time on a Benetteau 505. Damn that was a nice boat. Bit big for me but shrink it down a tadge and I'd have one in a shot. That thing has sailed almost the entire east coast of Oz with nary a problem. Her below decks wreaked quality and that garage up front was ginormous. 

Thats said I'm not about to go out and buy a Beneteau just yet but we are looking. The issues I see are that the Firsts are probably the best of them but their draft is a problem for us. I can handle six feet but beyond that it is a bit limiting. Ironically when we then have a look at the Oceanus, the forty odd footers are 5'6' ish draft which is getting to the point where uphill performance is going to suffer. 

Trouble is you see that too often we are close minded on these matters and really should be more open to different ideas. I am, I admit as guilty as the next man.


----------



## sab30 (Oct 11, 2006)

harryhoratio said:


> Have sailed my 1985 First 42 from Desolation Sound, BC to Zihautanejo, Mexico and would not trade her in for a heavier "blue water" boat ever. Crewed on an Island Packet 45 from Saint Thomas to Norfolk for 12 days and though the boat was solid and roomy and comfortable she was a compete dog sailing. If you feel the need for a little speed or if you love the sensation and "wheel feel" that is sailing to me - then stick with a quality builder with designs that are meant to sail better than most.
> 
> Check out the latest Practical Sailor and the article on design - very interesting.


The word comfort comes up here and it is one of the important factors for us. Us we shop for our second boat my wife (who can be prone to motion sickness-only 2 recorded fish feeding sessions uke ) would like comfort to be a priority both at sea and at anchor. Im told a heavier displacement boat provides better comfort at anchor as well. Distance offshore always seems to be the factor in the two camps but what about comfort. Would she be better suited in a heavy comfortable slower boat coastal sailing than the typical "coastal cruiser" ?

Just one of the many items on our checklist but a priority for her.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

harryhoratio said:


> Have sailed my 1985 First 42 from Desolation Sound, BC to Zihautanejo, Mexico and would not trade her in for a heavier "blue water" boat ever. Crewed on an Island Packet 45 from Saint Thomas to Norfolk for 12 days and though the boat was solid and roomy and comfortable she was a compete dog sailing. If you feel the need for a little speed or if you love the sensation and "wheel feel" that is sailing to me - then stick with a quality builder with designs that are meant to sail better than most.
> 
> Check out the latest Practical Sailor and the article on design - very interesting.


Agreed. The First 42 is a great boat.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

sab30 said:


> Im told a heavier displacement boat provides better comfort at anchor as well.


This is by no means a certain relationship and could be a red herring. Weight is one factor but hull shape is equally important. There are some heavy designs of the "old" style that do indeed behave more calmly, but you should also look at e.g. the transoms. Many newer boats have very wide transoms and a "fine" bough, resulting in a tremendous lift and carrying capacity aft. Compared with a narrow boat, e.g. a canoe stern, they roll less in a following sea and are less "wet" - they are not so quickly pooped. The design is meant to sail them more flat and with less roll. Put bluntly: sailing with less heel is also a comfort factor.

My own boat is great at anchor where it is allowed to swing into the wind, but not at all good tied up in a marina. Even small waves taken sideways will rock her in the marina. There, a heavy round-keeler would be more at home.

The weight factor can work both ways, and few designers add weight just for the sake of comfort. There will be combinations of wave height/length and boat where weight helps a particular boat, and others when the weight exacerbates the roll.

While sailing, remember that weight also affects how quickly a boat can accelerate. An agile boat can pick up speed and "ride" a wave rather than getting buried and trapped in it. I should add "sometimes" - this is also a truth that applies in some conditions, not all.

Important caution: we are after all speaking about _sail_ boats. The chief provider of stability is meant to be the sail, stiffening the boat and counteracting wave movements. When the boat is too heavy, the sails lack power to do their job; on the other hand, if the boat is super light it would overreact and be too restless.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

tdw said:


> ... Earlier this year Wombette and I spent some time on a Benetteau 505. Damn that was a nice boat. Bit big for me but shrink it down a tadge and I'd have one in a shot. That thing has sailed almost the entire east coast of Oz with nary a problem. Her below decks wreaked quality and that garage up front was ginormous...


WARNING, CONTENTS CONTAINS OUTRIGHT GLOATING. I WAITED, AND STOPPED FROM REPLYING TO TDW's POST, BUT IT HAS TO BE SAID. SO PLEASE FORGIVE IN ADVANCE.

It was an easy decision getting our 2000 Beneteau 505. Last summer, while I was bidding on her and low-balling the seller a bit, someone else made an asking price offer and took her off the market. (His offer was 19K over what I got the seller down to.) I had a huge sense of loss at this. It pretty much ruined my 4th of July weekend. The more I thought about it, and the more I looked at other boats and their prices, the more I realized that she was a great boat at a great price. And I had looked intently for 2 hours a day for 6 months at that point, and had full surveys done on 2 other boats already. I had driven from New York to Maryland to look her over and spent 4+ hours looking her over from stem to stern. There was a spinnaker (some rips, I found out later) that was not on the listing. There was a brand new dodger that was not in the listing, (IIRC, it still had the plastic wrap on it like it had never been mounted). The jib was (still is) in great shape, main good shape. Also the engine looked in great shape for 5,000 hours. [If I knew then how well it ran, it would have been a deal maker right then, but I followed their rules about not starting her up until we had an agreed price. I figured there must have been a problem with it.]

I felt a sense of loss, that I missed the perfect boat for us.

Going back to the seller's website a couple weeks later, THERE SHE WAS!!! The previous buyer's financing fell through. I picked up the phone and made an offer for the price I got the seller down to earlier. And the rest is history.

Apologies if I'm gloating now (hey, I warned you)... She sails really well, she's big enough for my whole family, plus a cousin or helper, and we use the crew quarter's area up front as a garage. Although she was in the Moorings fleet, according to the surveyor, she had no hard encounters with pilings. The cockpit can seat 8 for dinner or cocktails watching the sun set, and there's a transom door that I can leave open to help the cockpit drain if needed. She sleeps 8 in beds, 1 more in the crew quarters, plus another on the couch, if needed. I like the little solar panel that keeps the batteries at full charge (and even charges them a little when we aren't on the boat). I really like the keel shape (fin, with a bit of a bulb). I really like the windlass and chain. I really like the dinghy davits. We designated one of the 4 heads for showering and have plenty of room to store everything we need. She has 7 engine/transmission hatches that let me get to the engine easily. I also like the 268 gallons of water and 134 gallons of fuel. Finally, and very importantly, the parts and support from Beneteau is absolutely, positively, 100%, universally-agreed-upon, *excellent*.

(Ok, enough gloating)

She does need a few things, and some of this is more personalizing her than real problems. She sails at anchor - needs an anchor sail. We need to get the (new to us) wind generator on, since we spend a lot of time at our mooring or on the hook. Maybe the wind generator will help reduce sailing at anchor? Add a charge controller for the wind generator. Add a dump load to the water heater and cabin fans. She needs her batteries strapped down better (Beneteau owners, please send pics of how yours is secured). I'd like radar (next year maybe). I'm thinking about electric refrigeration to supplement engine driven, since we won't be using the engine that much - I still haven't given up putting an electric compressor into the existing freon/cold plate circuit, but only after talking with more experts. Swapping incandescents for LEDs. GPS with a map (the autopilot provides lat/long from it's GPS). Fuel and tank cleaning (just in case). Rudder had a little water in it, and has some play. Speed transducer needs to be replaced. Rig inspection. (And can I climb up there at 210 lbs? Not sure I want to. But darn it, don't I just have to?) And how does a Windex get slightly bent, anyway? I want a carbon monoxide detector. Looking for a sea anchor and snatch block (ala Pardey Storm Tactics), probably next year - just bought a very small ATM Gale Sail. Before we do serious blue water, I'd like to have a tri-sail and a separate track for it - or the kind of trisail that wraps around the mast. Add some training in diesel engine maintenance. Add a lot more solo practice, since I love to sail with or without crew. Oh, and winter storage for a 50' boat is $3,600 around here. Next winter I may leave it in, for 1/2 the price, so we can sail on nice winter days. I know some good crew from our October BFS.

Overrall a sweet boat. IMHO, ex-Mooring fleet Beneteaus are a very good way to get a great boat at a decent price.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Bene505. I for one am Jealous  But I can relate with TDW...



tdw said:


> Trouble is you see that too often we are close minded on these matters and really should be more open to different ideas. I am, I admit as guilty as the next man.


When I used to race part of parcel of being one of the 'real racing guys' was to take a swig of your beer, snigger and then shake your head knowingly every time a 'Bendytoy' sailed by.Real racing guys knew that those things just weren't real boats.

Then a couple of years ago I started cruising(coastal + armchair world cruising). I read the Pardeys, Slocum and I researched 'Old Shoes' day and night. Jesse Martin was my hero (he did a solo circumnavigation around the world in an S&S 34 at 18 without using his engine and utilizing only Celestial Navigation). Us REAL cruisers knew of course that Bendytoys were Not REAL cruising boats.

Then one day I picked up 'Just Cruising' by the Copelands, and nearly fell of my world cruising armchair. Here was a family who successfully sailed the world in one.....Since then I have personally daysailed on a few and chartered 40-45 Beneteau's multiple times, and my opnion has reluctantly changed . The thing is they are nice boats.

We are looking for our next boat as well, something 32-38 that we can coastal cruise from here(Sydney) up the east coast of Oz , but something with some offshore capability so that we have the potential of then going beyond into either the Pacific or Asia. We started looking at 'old shoes', but more and more we keep coming back to Beneteaus. I dont know if we will end up with one but we certainly won't be discounting them.


----------



## jimmytc (Aug 30, 2004)

Go for it.Bene's are best!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Personally, I like the sister brand, Jeanneau. Reality is, both have plus's and minus's from the same parent, but separate leaders and directions.

Chall, There are a number of Jeanneau owners in Oz that are doing what you describe. Then a family near me, Seattle Washington, just went from here to Oz and bac over 2 yrs with a Jeanneau 49iP. No issues crossing the oceans either. 

Marty


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I've heard alot of talk, obviously subjective cause its 'talk' that Jeanneau are in someways the poorer cousin, not quite as well built etc etc....

We certainly haven't discounted some 'old shoes' designs either, mostly aussie designs so I won't get into them here. 

The challenge is we will be coastal cruising predominantly, with some offshore passages(careful tradewind passages using weather windows etc, NOT circumnavigating by way of the capes). So while we do want bluewater capability, we also want to be able to live on and enjoy the boat in pretty little tropical anchorages....oh yeah and we are on a limited budget....So respectfully stick your Hallberg-Rassy recommendations up you mast 

Basically like the OP we are stuck between a tired and tested old shoe, or a beat up ex charter production boat.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Chall,

Look at ALL the manufactures that make boats designed to do what you want to do. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Bavaria, Dufour, Catalina, Hunter, Hanse to name a few. All are good on some ways, all have bad parts about them. 

I've also heard the rumours about Jeanneau being the lower quality boat, I personally fell the Jeanneau is better built than the Beneteau from the ones I have been in and seen. Ambiance as far as how the interior is built esigned etc is different between the two. Some folks like CD's wife, hops in a Jeanneau, says YUCK and walk out, hops in a Catalina, and starts to purr because she likes the feel better. My wife on the other hand, hops in a Catalina and says YUCK, and is out about that fast, hops in a Jeanneau and starts to purr! 

I know of two locals with 50' boats, one ea a Ben and Jen out of the caribbean charter fleet. Both love there boats! he Jeanneau owner still charters his in the san juans. 

Find a floor plan you like, size, then choose the best boat for your needs and wants. If it is a Ben, enjoy her, a Jen, enjoy her too, along with another brand.

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

blt2ski said:


> Chall,
> 
> Look at ALL the manufactures that make boats designed to do what you want to do. Beneteau, Jeanneau, Bavaria, Dufour, Catalina, Hunter, Hanse to name a few. All are good on some ways, all have bad parts about them.
> 
> ...


That is good advice Marty.

Incidentally, Catalina (trad a US boat) has moved into the Australian market. I consider them a very traditional interior. Lots and lots of teak. Doubt you will find one coming out of a charter, though. Few of them go into that business.

If you like the Euro (sorry Giu) interior over the traditional interior, you are better off skipping the Catalinas of the world alltogether. For your intended use, a productio nboat is probably exactly what you need, Challo.

- CD


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Thanks CD. 
I would like to do some limited offshore eventually, 
eg Sydney -Lord Howe Island 400nm or Cairns - Louisaddes 350nmetc. Would you feel nervous doing these kinds of passages in a (well equipped) production boat?

There are a a few Catalinas about down here, there is a 320 (I think) across from my boat on the marina. 

I do also actually know of a few in charter up the Whitsundays, everytime we have been up there however it has been on a Beneteau. 

Last Sydney boat show both my Wife and Mum absolutely loved the Catalina interior, so who knows.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

chall03 said:


> Thanks CD.
> I would like to do some limited offshore eventually,
> eg Sydney -Lord Howe Island 400nm or Cairns - Louisaddes 350nmetc. Would you feel nervous doing these kinds of passages in a (well equipped) production boat?
> 
> ...


Absolutely not a problem on the 400. Not a problem on the 380. The 36 could do it but I would be a bit more concerned about my weather window. Howebver, they have made much, much longer runs. The last 36 I read about in Mainsheet went across the Atlantic via Canada to England and was in the Med now.

400's would have no problem at all with that run. I would have no concerns. I will take my family (with 2 kids) much farther than that. We had a gentleman on this board that crossed the gulf on his 400 singlehanded, then across to the bahamas, then the carib. So 400 miles is certainly no issue since you are 800+ just to cross the gulf.

Your biggest issue with this or any boat is fuel and water. The water can be picked up via a watermaker (now, just to be clear, I am not saying you depend on a watermaker... I am saying that if functioning you will not have to be mega stingy). As far as the fuel, you can add bladders, tanks, or put some gerry cans (my least favorite option) topside. The 400 has around 45 gallons, so basically, you will want more (but probably not on a 400 nm trip).

SO go shopping Catalina. You will be fine. Incidentally, I do not know how the 387 or 350 would handle those conditions. I am not tuned into the new catalinas as much as the older ones. I personally much prefer the 380 and 36's over their replacements (as the 380 and 36 are out of production). However, that is just my opinion... though I know Cam also shares this view as do others.

Brian


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Thanks CD for the insight. 

The 400 does look like a great boat but may be a little big for our budget. I have just found a Catalina 36 though on a local site that looks promising.

The issue is unlike a Caribbean run places like the Louisaddes are the definition of off the beaten track, so your right water/fuel and spares are going to be big factors.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Chall,

If your looking at boats built in the say last 5-10 yrs, and jeanneau ends up one of the brands you are going to look at. Some models to take a gander at. 

Older would be the SO/SF 35, 37, 40 and 43 in the ranges you are looking at. The SO or Sun Odyssey vs the SF or Sun Fast models have the same hull, but the SF's are a taller rig, deeper keel, sometimes upgraded in size winches, cockpit traveler, ie a performance or race version, but a very nice boat. The SO models have a med and shoal draft options, shorter mast, less SA, cabin top traveler. The SO 37 was one of, if not the largerst number of boats ever manufactured by Jeanneau. 

The newer versions, ie last 2-3 yrs, the 36i, 39i and 42i. If you see one that has a "P" after it, that is the performance pkg, similar to the old SF pkg, ie a bit more SA, std or deep keep option vs std or shoal draft. Line control genoa carrs, dac mylar sail vs dacron. Among other things different. 

You should not have any issues with any of these boats doing what you want too.

marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

chall03 said:


> Thanks CD for the insight.
> 
> The 400 does look like a great boat but may be a little big for our budget. I have just found a Catalina 36 though on a local site that looks promising.
> 
> The issue is unlike a Caribbean run places like the Louisaddes are the definition of off the beaten track, so your right water/fuel and spares are going to be big factors.


The 400 is certainly one of the most expensive boats, unfortunately. They have put a lot more time and money in those boats then others. One exception would be the 380 and mybe the 36. However, both are out of production.

From a strictly cost basis/foot, you are probably better off going with Jeauneau or Bene. I glanced at the prices yesterday. They certainly seem to be less expensive and for a larger boat. However, I certainly would not base my entire dscision on cost.

Regarding the 36, it is one of my favorite boats of that size. I have said this before. Incidentally, I am a much bigger fan of the MKII versus the MKI. However, it is a much larger boat than its size dictates. The table folds up against the bulkhead, you have an entertainment cabinet, you have a "coffee" table to stbd, etc. Lots of great ideas that make the boat very functional. The only real issue with that boat is the difficulty in installing a generator. You can do it... but it will probably end up down below in the salon uinder a settee. If a generator (diesel) is not on your necessity list, it will likely do much/most of what you want.

DO be warned that the boat has a relatively shallow bilge. This has been an issue on very long tacks.

Ask SimonV about the boat. He has been on them, if I am not mistaken. I remember he and I disucssing them before he set off across the pond to Aus.

Take a look at the 380 before buying the 36. She comes from the Morgan hull and is quite a bit heavier. I have had that boat out in some real blows. It also has a seperate shower stall, queen aft berth for masters, can easily take a gen, etc. It certainly costs more money, but not significantly more. At least rule it out before taking the plunge.

Regarding the Jeauneau options, Marty obviously knows better. I am not educated first hand on those boats. Everything is obsesrvation or second hand.

Take care,

Brian


----------



## Bellamar (Apr 1, 2009)

Read all of the posts, almost forgot the original question. We started in Vancouver in 2004 with a 1989 41 Morgan Classic. We were new and had ask every question of everyone we met to try to eliminate mistakes. What boat what size what equipment. We met people that we thought were experts, (they were working in marine stores "topping up the cruising kitty") and all of them when ask of a particular boat replied, "nope, not strong enough, heavy enough, too short, too long..... well you get it. (These people are still there btw "topping up the kitty".

We settled on the Morgan for many reasons. The '89 was built by Catalina but still according to a lot of Charlie Morgans philosophy. The boat had no lockers topside except for one small seat locker in the cockpit. There was no room for propane. (we added a locker on the strbrd aft deck) It was a centre cockpit which no one liked. The cockpit coamings were too shallow for off shore. The drawers and cabinets had no sea latches. Their was no proper sea berth. The captain chairs were impractical. The list went on. We felt talking to people that this was not the way to go. We equipped her with everything. we had more strings, poles, chain and anchors than the USS Kitty Hawk. Our inventory included head gaskets, years worth of filters, alternators, gaskets and...well you get the point. She had radar, an inexpensive Lowrance plotter and a Robertson Autohelm.

Because she was a CC she handled like our 36 C&C. She had volume below and carried a beautiful aft cabin. Stand up shower. More plus's than negatives. 

So off we went. From Florida we sailed south to Cuba (we cheated and had the boat trucked to Marathon) and our first overnighter was a gas. The boat was strong, the autohelm took us to 2 miles off shore and one crew even had a shower. (she carried 225 gals of water and 85 of diesel) We sailed her around Cuba, Haiti, DR, PR and then onto the Virgins. We were told Morgans couldn't point. I tack in 95 degrees and then tweeked to 40 degrees off the wind.

We spend 4 seasons in the Caribe from USVI to Grenada. The boat never failed us. We used no spare inventory except an alternator for one week while our Balmar was serviced. The surprise for us was that even in Cuba one could get servicing. Once past DR, everything boating was available in the islands. It wasn't until the second year that we finally threw the voices in our head out that had given us advise. We were fine and the boat was more than fine. 

During the 4 seasons we experienced 2 hurricanes, one anchored in St. Davids at 110 knots wind speed, 4 tropical storms and many many squalls while doing passages. The boat was better than us.

We never sustained any damage, never dragged at anchor and never lost control of the boat.

So if your looking for a boat, do not rule anything out. anchored in Rodney Bay we saw a small 28 footer tack through the anchorage plucked down an anchor, snub it off and all disappeared below. Later in talking to them, they explained that they had just cruised in from Tenerife. 40 gals of water and 28 of diesel. That's all you need. and a self steer.

In four years we never broke a part that we had spares for, never ran out of water or diesel, and never felt the boat was inadequate. We bought for what we needed. Comfort. A nice roomy cockpit and a great aft cabin. Once in the Caribe, we never used anything below forward of the companionway. 

Think of what gives you comfort and security. For us it was being well anchored, (lots of chain and a new CQR), comfort, an easy sail plan and a well behaved boat in seas.

Take everyone's advice and apply it to what you percieve the journey to be in your mind. In the Caribbean there were more 'goofy' boats than I could imagine. It's not rocket science. From St. Martin we said goodbye to three boats leaving for the med, one an old old 40' North Star with bad running rigging and poor sails, one a 32 Ontario and the other an ex Moorings Charter boat being sailed back to France to get a refit. 

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to get a few points out before I forgot. 

We are currently placing an offer on a Beneteau 411 in the Caribbean. If her bones are sound, the rest is just polish and a few parts. You're new Cataline, Beneteau (insert choice here) will wear out just as fast sitting at anchor than being chartered. Any questions, I'll be happy to answer here or provide my email.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Thanks for adding your experience and thoughts Bellamar. Best of luck with the Beneteau 411. Let us know how it turns out.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

Anyone know why foot for foot, new Beneteaus seem to be lower priced than Catalinas? Equipment packages being similar.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

night0wl said:


> Anyone know why foot for foot, new Beneteaus seem to be lower priced than Catalinas? Equipment packages being similar.


I'll take a swag at it, Beneteau being WAY larger than Catalina, probably has much better buying power if you will than Catalina. Especially when and if you include Jeanneau, Waquiez used to be part of them, one of the inflatable boat manufactures is also owned by Group Beneteau, along with a custom boat building plant too. They also build land yachts, ie RV trailers and equal. They also have an electric car manufacturing plant. GB is probably equal to GM here in the states. Not as large overall in total dollars, but when you look at it from a what all they own.

Thats my swag, altho i could be off a bit.

marty


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BLT2SKI—

They also own one of the bigger catamaran makers.. FP probably, but might be Lagoon.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

Scale is what I suspected...but the price differentials are dramatic. Upwards of 20% on some models, which is why I bought the Beneteau. 

Although I do like how Catalina's still use all that teak inside...no exotics or veneers (yet). 

In terms of sailing capacity/toughness...is one better than the other?


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Dog,

You're right, forgot about Lagoon. 

Along with, while ea of those companies has there own Pres, and the ability to run independently, I would also SWAG, that Mdm Rowe does recommend that the say Oceanus line does not conflict to much with the Jeanneau line of cruising boats either. hence why Ben's are a bit less than Catalina's, which are a bit less than a Jeanneau. At least in the seattle area where I am. Granted one will sell a 32'ish foot boat for say 120, the other 125-130, and the higher in the 130-135K range. Same basic price point, but just enough difference/ambiance in the boats to sway one over another buyer. With Hunter being just below these three in costs too.

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Or maybe....

Maybe it is because Catalina still lays their hull up by hand?

Or maybe it is because they use solid teak interiors (very, very expensive) versus plastic laminated wood that falls off the cabinets at the boat shows?

Or maybe it is because in their layup schedule, they use E/S glass and even kevlar on high stress areas?

Or maybe it is because they oversize their hardware and amount of it? Compare, size for size, just the winches of a Catalina versus a Bene or other production boat (though Hunter is doing better).

Or maybe it is because they hold their value better. My boat is currently worth at least as much as I paid for it - and I bought it NEW!!!!! How many of you can make that boast? Now, given the maintenance and all the improvements that I have done, I am still in a black hole!!!! However, I could sell her tomorrow and not write a check to get rid of her. Pull the price on 400's and compare to the selling price.

I have long argued that Catalina needs to keep the same level of quality on their boats and if it costs more to make... then it costs more to make. That is why I have been a bit frustrated with their recent changes and shortfall of cabinetry. Still teak, but fewer cabinets. I do not mena to sit here and sound like Catalina is making better boats than Bene or Jeauneau and start a inner-forum war. But they do have a different philosophy on their products (or did). I think Hunter Marine is also trying to implement many of those philosophies. I think there would be a nice niche for a boat that cost a bit more than a bene/Jeaunea/(name your production boat), but would hold its value better and be and be better equipped.

Here is a bit about construction, taken directly from a writeup:



> Now that fiberglass boat construction has a half century history, it's appropriate to call Catalina's building methods "traditional ".Major structures are laid up by hand female molds (the molds are built in-house), and hulls are solid glass. The first lamination into the mold after the ISO/NPG gelcoat is a vinylester skin coat that acts as a barrier against moisture. Structural layers that follow are primarily E-glass with a percentage of S-glass, using mostly knitted laminates, which have more strength for their weight than woven laminates. At the California plant, high-density foam stringers are glassed into the hulls (above); at the Florida plant, hulls of 35 to 47 feet are fitted with a structural grid. Chopper guns are used for some non-structural components, such as iceboxes Parts that benefit from being finished on two sides are constructed with resin-transfer molding (RTM), a vacuum process that saves weight and reduces emissions.
> 
> Decks are the first structures to appear on the factory floor. (above). Except for dinghies under 16 feet (built with all-vinylester resins and foam-cored decks), decks are laid up with a balsa core with plywood or solid glass substituted for balsa wherever stanchions and other gear will be through-bolted. The solid coring is insurance against water intrusion. Metal backing plates, either aluminum or brass, are molded in to increase strength and spread the loads. When hardware is mounted later in the build process, an anti-seizing compound is used on fasteners so that they can be removed some day, if need be (below). Decks incorporate Kevlar reinforcing at the corners, and multiple mats are laid in for vertical reinforcing. For rigidity, decks are structurally bonded to interior overhead liners, leaving deck and liner as a single structure. The surface of the liner serves as a finished overhead for the interior.
> 
> ...


THings I feel they could improve upon:

THey could tab bulkheads. I think that would be better but would obviously considerably increase cost. They currently use a deck molded "Ridge" or "rib" for one side of the bulkead (3/4 inch teak ply with marine grade interior), which is fastened every few inches mechanically. One benefit of this is that you can remove the bulkhead for repair, I guess much easier than if she had been tabbed.

I feel they could make the wire (and especially the plumbing, like for the head waste hose) better access. Instead of completely changing how they lay them up - keep the same design but put lockers or access points along the run to make life easier. They are all accessible, but the head discharge especially is a real pain. THere are some water runs that are difficult to pull given the grid structure which is both a blessing and a curse. Compared to a Tayana where the hull does not require a grid, wire and plumbing runs are a breeze (well, comparitively).

More cabinetry - especially on the newer boats. Doing it aftermarket is much more labor and time intensive. How many of you wouldn't pay an extra... $5,000 or so (on a $200,000+ boat) to have every square inch of available space utilized? I certainly would. It would also make system access easier.

More access to hull via removeable floorboards. They use a grid structure with a liner on top. They do this for strength and rigidity. They do put some access points via floor boards. However, there is a lot of space that is not utilized which requires after market work to utilize it.

Fractional or cutter rig option or hey... let's even throw in a ketch!!! Wouldn't it be nice to have the option of choosing your preferred rig? I realize that this would change the design of the boat, but as different people have different purposes in mind, I think it would open up more people to their boats. Of course, I know no one that does this... so this is just dreaming.

Different portholes. I strongly prefer the SS screw down dog types for a variety of reasons. I know there are owners that have pulled out their plastic portlights and replaced with these. It is on my wishlist, honestly. I have had them leak on previous boats... not this one so far. The other swill leak too... but they are less prone to problems and certainly of stronger design.

Installing on all 32+ foot boats clip on points around the boat for Jacklines. Valiant does this. Some others do it too. You can do this yourself, but it requires considerably more time than what it would take at the factory.

If you will notice, many of my wishes revolve around my intended use for the boat. For anyone that was going to be on a lake or strictly coastal and not LA, would they care less? In fact, they would not want to pay the extra money for stuff they would never use. So maybe if you could pull your boat off the line and have some custm work done during layup, that would be helpful. Still, most of the things I have listed above are things about NONE of the production builders do. I am not picking on Catalina. For the price and product, it is a good value (in my opinion, the best). I have owned four now... and I am certainly not alone. In fact, the last guy I met that just bought a Valiant 50 (not a cheap boat folks... let me tell you) owned a Catalina 36 beforehand (and he could obviously afford about anything he wanted). So consider the loyal following they have and it might give you a fair appreciation for why their boats cost a bit more and hold their value well.

Just my thoughts. Others will dissagree, and that is fine.

Brian


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CD—

That article has got to be wrong factually. I saw no mention of installing the BBQ grills... 

All your other points make a lot of sense though... for once.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Dog, We all know Catalina owners can't sail, so the solid teak cabinetry is a survival feature. When Catalina owners are drifting aimlessly they can dismantle the cabinetry and use it to fuel the BBQ and not starve while awaiting rescue. 

Did you ever notice that Dad posts more when the market is up?


----------



## skyellab (Aug 7, 2006)

Why a Beneteau? Because you only live once and so why not 野生の子


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

that would still require cd to leave the dock... 


bubb2 said:


> Dog, We all know Catalina owners can't sail, so the solid teak cabinetry is a survival feature. When Catalina owners are drifting aimlessly they can dismantle the cabinetry and use it to fuel the BBQ and not starve while awaiting rescue.
> 
> Did you ever notice that Dad posts more when the market is up?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oops, forgot to add the solid, stainless steel, 10sf bbq grill that Catalina should stock on all boats. Instead of asking potential buyers to show proof that they are responsible sailors, I think a good BBQ quiz should be envoked. 

Why?

Well, that would make catalina's the most popular boat in the anchorage!! Imagine sitting on a Telstar, for instance, and watching as a Catalina pulls in. You grab your plates and meat and begin grovelling at the newcomers transom. 

We show pity. We really do. Maybe I should put this in the Random Acts of Kindness??

Brian


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

So that is why all the Catalina's have those shiny square thingy's on the back! They should get with it, and get a French boat, where they build a rotisserie into the kitchen itself! Giving you better aerodynamics for "ACTUALLY" sailing! 

But then, CD would lose his rep, and we would not want that now would we?!?!?!?!?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Cruisingdad said:


> Oops, forgot to add the solid, stainless steel, 10sf bbq grill that Catalina should stock on all boats. Instead of asking potential buyers to show proof that they are responsible sailors, I think a good BBQ quiz should be envoked.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


ROFLMAO

As long as you are taking orders, medium rare. I'll bring the beer.


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

We were dedicated Catalinia people, but we almost went over to the darkside when we put an offer on a Bene 381. It sure was a pretty boat, and was very well equipped. We were mad when someone made a higher offer and bought it out from under us, but now looking back, I'm so glad they did. Our big concern with the 381 was the storage space, or lack of it. We weren't looking for bluewater storage, we were looking for a place to store a frying pan, and there wasn't one. There was some room under the seating in the cabin, but it was all taken up my air-conditioners and other systems. The boat had litterly no storage....but it had a beautiful cabin! When we made the offer, we recognized the storage problem but decided we could work around it somehow. After we missed out on that boat, a broker tried to get us interested in a Bene 361, and we didn't want anything to do with it....design-wise, it's essentially a compacted 381, which would only make the problem worse. 

We ended up with a Catalina 350...I know it's not one of CD's favorites, but what does he know, anyway? We love it....it sails great (really, it does!), and there is a TON of storage space. 

My other complaint about Beneteaus is their rigging. The Garhauer stuff on my boat is huge. The Harken winches are great. I visited the previous owner of our boat's new, larger Beneteau, and honestly, if he offered to trade it to me even, I would have kept the Catalina. The rigging on it just looked....puny. The traveler looked like it came out of the "my first traveler" kit. Then I went below----there was nothing to hang on to, anywhere! I fall down a lot, even on dry land, so I need plenty of handholds. My Catalina has lots of them.


----------



## Mimsy (Mar 22, 2009)

Aesthetically, I think Beneteaus are some of the loveliest cabins around. I love the unmistakeable European design influence and if you are into Scandi furniture I can't think of a prettier cabin for you.The thing about their cabins that I don't like is exactly what *Soulfinger* said above- storage or the lack there of.

We're looking at a Beneteau First 36 because we have friends who have had a lot of fun sailing theirs. The lines certainly appeal to the Mr. and the price leaves a lot of room for toys.

I'm reluctant to put this in our top three list because of a few issues but the biggest ones for me are the functional ones of day to day life. There are no hand holds, there is precious little storage space and the berths feel really tight for a boat in this size range.The tankage issue is another problem for being out more than a day or two.

If we weren't planning on cruising with a kid but we're just going to stay local with a couple of overnights here and there I would probably move the Benes up the list, sail snobs be damned! These boats are easy to sail (per several sailing friends who either owned one or sailed one), very manueverable in tight areas and you can not deny that they are very easy on the eyes.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Mimsy

Which yr first 36 are you looking at? the current model F36.7? or an older 36' model? 

As far as storage, you and any one, including me, need to really think about "how much junk/junque?" do I really need on board? Then it also comes down to, where and how that "junk/junque" will be stored on board too! ie outer extremities, either sides or front/back etc. I do not care "WHAT" mid 30' boat you are on, there is not tons of storage space! Yes some have a bit more than others. Some better thought out........Still, you only have soo much space in a 36'x12' boat!

The other I will point out, I think I have before too. This hand hold issue folks talk about, either lack of, or they're there! I've been on a couple of boats, folks thought the hand holds were great, well, maybe because being taller than they are, I found them awkward! Others will say where "I" want them, they will be awkward for them. There are a few things I personally do not feel should be on the upper list of things that folks should look at as a good cruising boat. These are one of them. Handholds and where they are placed, should be personalized IMHO to the boat you are one, added where need be etc. Take my comments for what you paid, not much on the hand hold issue. If you like the boat other wise, Hand holds are easy to add in most cases!

Marty


----------



## Mimsy (Mar 22, 2009)

The 36.7 . If it was just me and the hubster, the issues of storage, tankage and handholds wouldn't be so pressing. Since we are going out with a youngster, it becomes more important. I know you can add hand holds but there wasn't really a convienent place ot put them for a kid. On top of the furniture makes sense for me, but not for a 4'3 inch girl.

The boat at the top of my list has lots of well thought out storage, is kid friendly but the husband calls it an "ugly fat pig". LOL There is no thing as a one size fits all boat.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

There are NO "ugly fat pig" boats! There are "OLD SHOE" boats! The 36.7 does not fit into the OLD shoe category! That is one that is reasonably capable of going offshore etc! The first series, at least at one time, foot for foot were better built than the oceanus versions. 

If you do like that boat, look for an older 40.7, a bit longer, probably pricier but may have more room etc for you needs. Also a J37 and J40, 120, 122 have similar lines abilities too, with speed and have cruised the world too, doing ocean passages.

If you look at Jeanneaus, look at the SO37 or if you can find an SF version, a bit more keel depth and Sail area. but the hulls are the same. A better rigging setup too as far as what is there for sailing too. IE bigger winches in many cases too.

Not sure where you are headed too, but many boats that will work depending upon what "style" of boat you like.

marty


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

blt2ski said:


> The first series, at least at one time, foot for foot were better built than the oceanus versions.
> 
> marty


I heard that for years! However, after talking to Beneteau and doing some checking, Both series start out with the same hull. It is the the topsides, the interior, and rig that make them different.

My Ocean's has hand holds running down both sides of the cabin.

I realize that some might want to argue my point and they would be the ones to say that GMC's are better trucks then Chevy's. They both come down the same assembly line.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Our friends have cruised a 36.7 in the Caribbean each winter since 2003.. great boat for spirited island hopping... but they (just a couple) live a pretty spare lifestyle ashore and asea. We've joined them for a couple of weeks several times, sometimes with 4, making it 6 aboard for that time (but no kids so far)

Definitely a nice handling boat - but it is a bit spartan.


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

One more thing...if the big three (C, H, & B) are really the worst things out there, we're still way ahead of the curve compared to the powerboaters. It seems even a poorly built new sailboat is about as good as a mid-range powerboat.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

All this talk of Beneteaus, I can't wait to sail ours. (We are still on the hard.)


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

bubb2 said:


> I heard that for years! However, after talking to Beneteau and doing some checking, Both series start out with the same hull. It is the the topsides, the interior, and rig that make them different.
> 
> My Ocean's has hand holds running down both sides of the cabin.
> 
> I realize that some might want to argue my point and they would be the ones to say that GMC's are better trucks then Chevy's. They both come down the same assembly line.


Only at most a couple of the Firsts shared the same hull shape as the regular series. And even if they share the same hull shape, they can have significantly different layups used in their construction. Additional details can be bulkhead attachment and the hull-deck joint reinforcement. As an example, someone tried to race a Beneteau 393 offshore, in a race that with a First 40.7 would have been no problem.

_During 3 days of 30 to 40 knots on the nose and reefed, the babystay started to pull the deck up and craze all the gel coat around its chainplate and the interior liner for the forward head was so loose the mirror in the head broke. On arrival at the finish, it was noticed that the rudder stock tube was delaminating from the hull, the quarter berth molding had separated from the aft lazarette bulkhead i.e. the hull had twisted in the predominantly reaching conditions (under 12 to 15 knots of wind). On the trip back, it was noticed that between every bolt in the toe rail from the shrouds to the bow, the aluminum was bent upwards 4mm and separated from the deck as if the bow had been bent upwards, thereby compressing the distance between the bolts. i.e. the hull is very soft. Now you need to remember: this was a relatively new boat that had only cruised in sheltered water previously and there were only 3 days out of 17 with wind over 15 knots !!! "A" Rated to force 8 and above ..yeah right. The part that said "vessel largely self sufficient" should have said "occupants better be self sufficient"_

This is from a thread: beneteau 373 - Sailing Anarchy Forums


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

slap, The 393 is a newer model. When I bought my Bennie new 10 years ago. I went through this same Issue, As I wanted the answer for my self. Like I said the hulls started out the same (back then) it was the rig and interior and topside that made them different. If things have changed I am unaware of it.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

bubb2 said:


> slap, The 393 is a newer model. When I bought my Bennie new 10 years ago. I went through this same Issue, As I wanted the answer for my self. Like I said the hulls started out the same (back then) it was the rig and interior and topside that made them different. If things have changed I am unaware of it.


From what I can tell, it is only one or two models in the 90's where they shared the same hull shape. That does not mean they shared the same laminate schedule or structural reinforcements. Upping it to the level required for an offshore capable racing boat adds costs that Beneteau often has not been willing to do for their cruising line of boats.

Another difference between the First series and the other Beneteaus is the sizing of the hardware - the First series uses larger winches, blocks, etc.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Slap,

I am going to swag that bubb is not in reality saying the hull's them selves are the same, but that the layup etc is the same! I believe most of us, even the dumber ones realize that the first series boats have different hull shapes etc than the Oceanus. Jeanneau on the otherhand, did use the same hull, deck etc for their race version, but but a deeper keep, typically of lead vs steel, taller mast, better upgraded deck gear etc for the Sunfast version vs the Sun Odysses versions. Some models of the "Performance" versions also have some gear upgraded etc, but do have deeper keels of steel and a taller larger rig.

Marty


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

slap said:


> Only at most a couple of the Firsts shared the same hull shape as the regular series. And even if they share the same hull shape, they can have significantly different layups used in their construction. Additional details can be bulkhead attachment and the hull-deck joint reinforcement. As an example, someone tried to race a Beneteau 393 offshore, in a race that with a First 40.7 would have been no problem.
> 
> _During 3 days of 30 to 40 knots on the nose and reefed, the babystay started to pull the deck up and craze all the gel coat around its chainplate and the interior liner for the forward head was so loose the mirror in the head broke. On arrival at the finish, it was noticed that the rudder stock tube was delaminating from the hull, the quarter berth molding had separated from the aft lazarette bulkhead i.e. the hull had twisted in the predominantly reaching conditions (under 12 to 15 knots of wind). On the trip back, it was noticed that between every bolt in the toe rail from the shrouds to the bow, the aluminum was bent upwards 4mm and separated from the deck as if the bow had been bent upwards, thereby compressing the distance between the bolts. i.e. the hull is very soft. Now you need to remember: this was a relatively new boat that had only cruised in sheltered water previously and there were only 3 days out of 17 with wind over 15 knots !!! "A" Rated to force 8 and above ..yeah right. The part that said "vessel largely self sufficient" should have said "occupants better be self sufficient"_
> 
> This is from a thread: beneteau 373 - Sailing Anarchy Forums


I'm not going to pick a fight with you, but this supposed 393 and offshore race story you rely upon, which was it, 3 days of 30 to 40 knot winds on the nose, 3 days of reaching in under 12 to 15 knots of wind, or 3 days out of 17 with wind over 15 knots? You need to figure out which set of conditions you are going to posit for your story. I have no problem with folks criticizing boats, but at least make your anecdote facially plausible.

And by the way, if you think a mass production company like Beneteau is going to use multiple layup or production methods, you are gravely mistaken. The hulls are built the same way. Different lines, different fit out, etc., but the hulls are built on the same line with the same method.

I also want to note something else.  I say this not to defend Beneteaus blindly or argue that they are the most stoutly built boats ever. Not at all, and if you've read my posts you'll know that. That said, why would anyone take a stock Beneteau 393 and race it 2600 miles through Bass Straight (assuming this story even is true, which I have my doubts)? But of course, this person claims it was not a stock Beneteau. That is, they changed the rig, made it more powerful (did they change the rigging to support that increase is power, reinforce the chainplates, anything?), made unspecified structural changes, and did all sorts of other stuff. No one knows if they did a decent job of course. Nor does anyone know if they checked with the architect or anyone else, or did any calculations or analysis at all, to see if what they were doing would be OK from a design perspective. Instead, we have a fairly naked post about a group of guys who made fundamental changes to the sailplan by loading it up, then made all kinds of DIY structural modifications, sail the boat in an offshore event for which the boat was not designed, and then blame the original manufacturer when the boat falls apart??? That's like the child who murders his parents and then begs for forgiveness because he's an orphan.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Slap—

You might also want to consider the source of the story—Sailing Anarchy forums... yeah, that's a reputable place for a story like this...NOT.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Isn’t this example and argument a little upside-down? This quote from the sailinganarchy story says a lot about the good judgment of that source: “I wonder if they installed 373 specified gear on the 393 because some illiterate **** at the factory couldn't tell the difference between the two boats.”
Yeah right, Beneteaus are designed and equipped by ignorant nitwits, presumably assembled one by one at the whim of a worker? Beneteau makes 4000 boats a year, and when they consistently make two series in the same sizes, obviously they do it for a purpose. One could argue whether the First or the Oceanis series are the “better” boats, but quite apart from hull shapes there is no mistaking their intended uses. 

Below are some specs for the current First 40 and Oceanis 40. Generalizing a little, of course the First is strengthened in some respects; it damn well has to be, with its much larger rig and deeper keels. Everything on the Oceanis is tuned down, from sail areas to winches, while on the other hand you wouldn’t seriously call the First an ocean cruiser with its mere 200L of water and 130L of diesel. Props are also a dead giveaway - shaft drive vs. saildrive.

The conclusion seems glaringly obvious: Trying to race an Oceanis is like entering Indianapolis 500 with a Volvo. The boat is underpowered and meant to be. These guys went ahead and strengthened the rig, travelers, winches etc. – so that they could put greater stresses in the rig, I take it… and the rig is attached to the deck… and so forth? Then, golly ... “babystay started to pull the deck up”. I’m sorry, but stories like this tell a lot about stupidity, and I wouldn’t look for it first at the factory


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> Slap-
> 
> You might also want to consider the source of the story-Sailing Anarchy forums... yeah, that's a reputable place for a story like this...NOT.


While you may not care for Sailing Anarchy, quite a few of the people who post there (not in that thread) are quite reputable - like Bob Perry, Tim Kernan, Mark Mills, and John Corby. Is the person who posted that experience with the Beneteau 393 reputable? My impression of his efforts on Bob Perry's WLYDO work and other posts of his that I've read is that he is.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

OsmundL said:


> Isn't this example and argument a little upside-down? This quote from the sailinganarchy story says a lot about the good judgment of that source: "I wonder if they installed 373 specified gear on the 393 because some illiterate **** at the factory couldn't tell the difference between the two boats."


The previous sentance to that was:
_Bottom line was, everything in the rig department was undersized according to the *various hardware manufacturer's specs*. _
So did Beneteau knowingly put under-spec'd hardware on, or did somebody screw up?



> Everything on the Oceanis is tuned down, from sail areas to winches, while on the other hand you wouldn't seriously call the First an ocean cruiser with its mere 200L of water and 130L of diesel. Props are also a dead giveaway - shaft drive vs. saildrive.


If you really want to do some offshore cruising, you might want to up both boats fuel and water capacities. Alot of cruising boats have saildrives, including Tartans and most cruising catamarans.


> The conclusion seems glaringly obvious: Trying to race an Oceanis is like entering Indianapolis 500 with a Volvo. The boat is underpowered and meant to be. These guys went ahead and strengthened the rig, travelers, winches etc. - so that they could put greater stresses in the rig, I take it&#8230; and the rig is attached to the deck&#8230; and so forth? Then, golly ... "babystay started to pull the deck up". I'm sorry, but stories like this tell a lot about stupidity, and I wouldn't look for it first at the factory


Maybe Beneteau should put a sticker on the boat: "upgrading the hardware will overstress the rig and hull" 

If you read the thread, the poster had said:
_From the outset, I had doubts and made the owner aware._

Racing stresses a boat. But so do storms.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

danielgoldberg said:


> I'm not going to pick a fight with you, but this supposed 393 and offshore race story you rely upon, which was it, 3 days of 30 to 40 knot winds on the nose, 3 days of reaching in under 12 to 15 knots of wind, or 3 days out of 17 with wind over 15 knots? You need to figure out which set of conditions you are going to posit for your story. I have no problem with folks criticizing boats, but at least make your anecdote facially plausible.


3 days out of 17 with wind over 15 knots means that there were 14 days of wind at or under 15 knots. The three days of wind over 15 knots were probably the days that it blew 30-40 knots. I assume that the 3 days of reaching in 12 to 15 knots of wind are part of the 14 days of wind at or under 15 knots. Mathematically, it all adds up.  


> And by the way, if you think a mass production company like Beneteau is going to use multiple layup or production methods, you are gravely mistaken. The hulls are built the same way. Different lines, different fit out, etc., but the hulls are built on the same line with the same method.


So all 393's are built the same, no matter what rig options are selected?


> I also want to note something else. I say this not to defend Beneteaus blindly or argue that they are the most stoutly built boats ever. Not at all, and if you've read my posts you'll know that. That said, why would anyone take a stock Beneteau 393 and race it 2600 miles through Bass Straight (assuming this story even is true, which I have my doubts)? But of course, this person claims it was not a stock Beneteau. That is, they changed the rig, made it more powerful (did they change the rigging to support that increase is power, reinforce the chainplates, anything?), made unspecified structural changes, and did all sorts of other stuff.


In the thread they said the changes they made were:

_In any event, we stripped the lousy in-mast mainsail furling to lower the C of G, improve the stability and put a decent mainsail on with proper slab reefing- what a difference!!; in the process we found that the masthead had a ludicrous arrangement for securing the axles on the halyard worn sheaves (all replaced and re-engineered); installed the next size up of boom section as the first bent in 15 knots beam reaching; almost lost the rig when the cast forestay tang bust in less than 20 knots heading for the start of a day race; replaced lousy undersized Profurl with Furlex foil and jib furler ( furler drum removed for the race); all new halyards (boat was only a couple of years old but with cheap, very stretchy halyards); replaced mainsail traveller with properly sized Harken unit and increased control line blocks to triples so traveller could be adjusted without a winch; put another cascade on the vang so it could be trimmed without a winch; upgraded Lewmar winches; replaced failing halyard stoppers; replaced spinnaker halyard blocks with correct working load Harkens_

I didn't see anything about structural changes in the thread. Do you have more information on it?


> No one knows if they did a decent job of course. Nor does anyone know if they checked with the architect or anyone else, or did any calculations or analysis at all, to see if what they were doing would be OK from a design perspective. Instead, we have a fairly naked post about a group of guys who made fundamental changes to the sailplan by loading it up,* then made all kinds of DIY structural modifications*, sail the boat in an offshore event for which the boat was not designed, and then blame the original manufacturer when the boat falls apart??? That's like the child who murders his parents and then begs for forgiveness because he's an orphan.


The only sailplan change they made was that they switched from an in mast furling main to a normal main. The 393 was sold with either type of main, so they did not change the sailplan beyond the 393 design.

Again, what type of structural modifications are you refering to? Are adding a better traveler, better blocks, better roller furler for the jib, and better winches structural modification?

The 393 is rated A for offshore use. An interesting question to ask is if the forces on a boat being sailed hard in 30-40 knots of wind are similar to those on the boat not being sailed hard, but in a storm?


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

slap said:


> The previous sentance to that was:
> _Bottom line was, everything in the rig department was undersized according to the *various hardware manufacturer's specs*. _
> So did Beneteau knowingly put under-spec'd hardware on, or did somebody screw up?


Or... to add the other possibility: was the person claiming it was underspecced, simply wrong? We have his word for it.  I do not have all details on the 394 - stays, wiring, deck tackle - but the winches are documented and clearly not underspecced. Genoa winches of H 46.2 STC are not even close to being too small for the sails and boat size.

There is a risk that this will become a tit-for-tat quarrel based on incomplete and anecdotal evidence, so I'm the wrong person to comment further on the specifics.



> Maybe Beneteau should put a sticker on the boat: "upgrading the hardware will overstress the rig and hull"


But of course they could, that is a given! It holds for any boat that strengthening one component may transfer unsafe stresses to other parts. Some boats may be oversized in some department and will cope with upgrades, but a properly balanced boat should not.



> Racing stresses a boat. But so do storms.


Quite - and in different ways. The carbon mast put on a racer has enormous strength, but not against fatigue and some types of impact - most manufacturers do not yet trust it for long-term cruising.

Anecdotes have their place in debating boats, but only when told first-hand, I believe. You can pick any model in the world and read that "so-and-so says" and unless the person saying it was _you_, it's noise. Some detail is always left out. I'm not going to muddy the waters by arguing this particular case any more. Did I tell you about the Hallberg-Rassy I met in a marina? It was brand new, and they had been stuck there for more than 2 weeks while electricians sorted out their system which was, in their words, a "total ****-up". I ought to start a new post "All HRs have cocked-up electricals." Wanna bet it will be quoted in some other forum? When some journalist grabs the wrong end of the stick, the story will be "HR has electrical cocks," and some Beneteau owners will try to upgrade.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

OsmundL said:


> Or... to add the other possibility: was the person claiming it was underspecced, simply wrong? We have his word for it.  I do not have all details on the 394 - stays, wiring, deck tackle - but the winches are documented and clearly not underspecced. Genoa winches of H 46.2 STC are not even close to being too small for the sails and boat size.


According to the Lewmar website, for a 39-41 foot masthead sailboat, they reccommend a 54ST genoa winch.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

> According to the Lewmar website, for a 39-41 foot masthead sailboat, they reccommend a 54ST genoa winch.


Yes, but this is not a large genoa - merely 42,8sqm. On the same size boat, I have 48ST for a genoa of 48sqm.

Show me any boat for less than $1 mill that does not come from the yard with rig parts lesser than optimum. They will deliver "adequate" unless you demand otherwise. The ultimate non-stretching halyard costs at least 2-3 times the regular issue, and many cruisers don't want them because they are so damned stiff and hard to winch. I count on replacing halyards, sheets, some blocks and other details within three years of buying new - you kind of don't feel the boat is all yours until you've made those optimalizations. Some of which, I may add, are probably over the top, but it feels good.

The guys in your example clearly looked at the boat only from a racing perspective. All those changes had the common aim of putting greater strains on the rig. Am I wrong to argue this is entirely opposite to the way one cruises wisely? Reefing down, trimming with some leeway, and sailing with some margin should not put anywhere near the stresses on the rig that they clearly did.

This philosophy is not to go slow, btw. Boats of the IOR era sailed on the gunwhales and looked spectacular, and of course you trimmed and tightened for life. Newer cruisers must sail more flat or else they'll be suboptimal. In other words, keeping pressure _off_ the rig is part of the trick.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

OsmundL said:


> This philosophy is not to go slow, btw. Boats of the IOR era sailed on the gunwhales and looked spectacular, and of course you trimmed and tightened for life. Newer cruisers must sail more flat or else they'll be suboptimal. In other words, keeping pressure _off_ the rig is part of the trick.


Of course, the newer race boats must be sailed more flat or else they'll be slow. In other words, reducing sail (which reduces loads on the rig) is part of the trick.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

slap said:


> Of course, the newer race boats must be sailed more flat or else they'll be slow. In other words, reducing sail (which reduces loads on the rig) is part of the trick.


Not the same at all. By "race boat" I think of Open 40/60, Volvo Ocean Race etc., and these are planing boats, extremely wide and flat. They carry huge sails aimed at keeping them on the plane, something you could not even hope for in a spiffed-up cruiser. This is why I had the suspicion - only a hunch not proven, I admit - that the modifications these guys attempted were all aimed at sailing the boat "hard" - a little harder than is wise.

But OK, we are all only second-guessing here.


----------



## Bene323hfxns (Feb 2, 2009)

*Storage*

Storage is definitely an issue, our B323 has very little of it. Some people have been very creative about it, I know a B323 owner who has routered out holes in the aft cabin and found lots of nooks and crannies for storage. Bene also sells extra cabinets that can be places near the forward bulkheads to add storage. Unfortunately its a trade off, and a lot of people want more room, and less storage. I am not sure its the wisest trade off. Very common on mid-size production cruisers though.


----------



## fsp421 (Feb 4, 2009)

*Beneteaus and keel bolts?*

I am looking at a 381, 1999.
The survey came in quite well with the exception about the keel bolts.

Is this common and what is the best remedy?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

fsp421 said:


> I am looking at a 381, 1999.
> The survey came in quite well with the exception about the keel bolts.
> 
> Is this common and what is the best remedy?


What is wrong with the keel bolts?? That sends up a warning flag to me. You might want to start a new thread in Buying Boats Forum and raise it to the attention of some others. I don't like it.

- CD


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

fsp421 said:


> I am looking at a 381, 1999.
> The survey came in quite well with the exception about the keel bolts.
> 
> Is this common and what is the best remedy?


That no sound good. Exactly what did he say about the keel bolts? That's the kind of thing you would hope not to hear. It may be nothing, but it certainly is not an area you want to come up on the survey.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

danielgoldberg said:


> That no sound good. Exactly what did he say about the keel bolts? That's the kind of thing you would hope not to hear. It may be nothing, but it certainly is not an area you want to come up on the survey.[/quot
> 
> Common issue with a survey.. not bennie specific.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

[/QUOTE]Common issue with a survey.. not bennie specific.[/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to suggest it was Bennie specific. It might not be a big deal if the comment is they need to be torqued or something similar, but depending on the comment from the surveyor, it may not be the kind of area I would want to show up.


----------



## johnskipper (Mar 30, 2009)

Only Mayday Ive ever heard at sea. Off East Australian coast sailing south into 30 knots and 2m seas- punching along pretty comfortably given conditions when received call- It was a 50' Beneteau sailing south in same conditions and had apparently fallen off a wave and split side - this only % miles out so local Coastal Patrol soon came to the rescue and took the crew off but under tow water rushed to the bow and the yacht sank


----------



## fsp421 (Feb 4, 2009)

Thanks. The bolts showed some signs of corrossion.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

johnskipper said:


> Only Mayday Ive ever heard at sea. Off East Australian coast sailing south into 30 knots and 2m seas- punching along pretty comfortably given conditions when received call- It was a 50' Beneteau sailing south in same conditions and had apparently fallen off a wave and split side - this only % miles out so local Coastal Patrol soon came to the rescue and took the crew off but under tow water rushed to the bow and the yacht sank


Since I have on of those... What do you mean by "fallen off a wave and split side"?

Regards


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

> Only Mayday Ive ever heard at sea. Off East Australian coast sailing south into 30 knots and 2m seas- punching along pretty comfortably given conditions when received call- It was a 50' Beneteau sailing south in same conditions and had apparently fallen off a wave and split side - this only % miles out so local Coastal Patrol soon came to the rescue and took the crew off but under tow water rushed to the bow and the yacht sank


Please provide additional details on the foregoing and particularly the approximate date. I am surprised that no such incident has been reported in the Coastal Patrol's publication, Beam Ends, or on its web-site tho' such an event would seem to have been a major story, no?


----------

