Capt. Rob wrote:
Low quality, built to a price point.


All production boats are built to a price point. The problem is a false
perception that a smaller builder might produce better boats. The
smaller builder will usually pay more for everything used to construct
a boat. Their best course of action for sales is to proclaim there boat
is "better." But how are they better? My 35s5 looks as good or better
than most Tartans. J-Boats and C&Cs we saw. If there was one standout
it was the Cape Dory yachts which seemed to have weathered the years
better than most other boats.
Big builders can afford to push the envelope. My 35s5 is just light
years beyond most of the boats built in the early 90s. Doug was unable
to find more than a couple of boats that combine her performance and
accomodations per foot. All he could do was post pics of boats that had
half the features.
Do features make a good boat? They do if they're important to
you...like an aft cabin and swim platform. Like a good turn of speed
and a spacious cockpit. Like a beautiful interior and head sized for
adults over 6 feet. Like shallow draft and a clear deck.

RB
35s5
NY

In your diatribes about boat quality you never seem to address the meat
of the matter. You go on ad infinitum about looks, speed, features and
spaciousness but poor quality boats can look good, go fast and be
spacious with lots of features. You haven't addressed the quality of
the material used in the building of the boat, used in the rig, and the
other areas where the quality boat would stand out.

It is easy to build a boat that looks good and sails well for 10 or 15
years. Particularly if the boat only sees 20-30 days a year of sailing
in the Caribbean. It is far more difficult to build a boat that
withstands live-aboard and cruising lifestyles. The wear and tear on
those boats is significantly greater.

Figure the average boat gets about 25 days of sailing a year and few of
them are 24 hour days. Most are 8 hour days. So what is that? 200
hours a year? The average recreational sailor's diesel gets about 100
hours a year. Even a poorly constructed boat will look good for a few
years with that kind of limited and light use.

Now lets use one trip from Victoria to Hawaii as the typical cruiser
(although most will sail more than that in a year). The standard route
takes about 25 days of 24 hour a day sailing. So already they have
amassed 3 time the amount of wear and tear (600 hours). It is also well
known that offshore sailing with its constant motion is far harder on
gear than typical coastal cruising where the skipper picks his weather
window. Ergo the 600 hours has been harder (per hour) on the running
gear than the coastal cruising was in the other example.

The newer Benehuntalina may very well handle the challenges of offshore
sailing but their life span will not be that of a better quality boat.
In order to take them offshore they typically need lots of upgrades to
ready them for the rigors. The quality boat will be better equipped as
constructed and last longer once out there sailing.

So in the final comparison between Benehuntalinas and the slower purpose
built cruising boats should be made on level ground. I suggest that the
reason your boat looks good is because it hasn't been sailed much and
the others that didn't were. For a realistic comparison you need to
look at boats of a similar age with the same amount of ocean miles.
That is where the Compacs, Valiants, Vancouvers, Cape Dorys, Albergs and
other heavy built boats come out way ahead.

Gaz