Great point. Therefore, one should pay more for a boat from a smaller
builder to get the same quality.

Until you move up well beyond Sabres and Tartans and Island Packets,
you're certainly not getting the premium boat you might think. Don't
believe me? Go ask some insurance surveyors who've seen many of these
boats totalled out. Ask THEM how much better a Tartan is than a Hunter.
Tartan owners sure won't like the answer.

RB
35s5
NY

Hey Nutsy,

Who's going to Publish you?



http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Yea Beneteaus are better built. That's why they had the biggest
blister problem of any builder during the eighties and early nineties.
Thats why for years they used rivets to secure the hull to deck joint
until they started failing by the hundreds and reviewers embarassed
them into switching to bolts.

35s5 always bringing up the rear.

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

"Gary" wrote in message
news:9ogqf.157589$ki.23303@pd7tw2no...
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

Do ANY of those boats have a swim platform?

An aft cabin?

PHRF of less than 130?

hmmmm?

Hunters aren't built for long term hard sailing. Stuff
starts coming apart.



Capt. Rob wrote:
Utter nonsense....the kind of crap you hear from old dock farts.

Really? I guess the several bent rudder posts & detached
bulkheads that I've seen were put there on purpose? I guess
the OEM sails of underweight material with only one reef
point are perfectly suitable?

DSK

"Capt" Rob wrote:
All production boats are built to a price point. The problem is a false
perception that a smaller builder might produce better boats.

It's not a problem at all, nor is it a false perception.

.... My 35s5 is just light
years beyond most of the boats built in the early 90s.

"Your" 35s5? I thought you'd pretty well admitted that this
was another empty troll?

.... Doug was unable
to find more than a couple of boats that combine her performance and
accomodations per foot.

Malarkey. Want me to publish the list again?


Gary wrote:
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.


I guess it depends on what you include in "quality." Is the
wiring fully compliant with ABYC and ABS specs? Is the hull
& deck construction robust enough to stand up to years of
hard sailing? Is the deck & rig constructed so that a lack
of perfect maintenance isn't going to cripple her in years
to come? For that matter, what about plumbing & engine
maintenance, is it easy to access all the necessary areas?



It is easy to build a boat that looks good and sails well for 10 or 15
years.

Nah, it's not really easy, but it's sure easier to build a
boat with "style" than to build one that really sails well
and holds up to serious usage.


... 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.


IMHO long term cruising is hard on a boat, and should not be
confused with "liveaboard." Most people who live aboard
boats that I know of don't go anywhere very often, if ever.
The wear and tear on the boat is minimal, except for the galley.

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.

Not only that, but it's in calm conditions. When boats have
stuff breaking in 40 knot winds, that's bad. When stuff is
breaking on boats less than 10 years old that have been used
lightly in calm conditions, that's really bad.



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.

Especially chafe & UV exposure.

... 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.

And their life span is likely to be terminated by something
like the ports breaking out under a sea coming over the
deck, or the rudder shaft bending & locking up, if the
bulkhead tabbing doesn't break loose and start banging.

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.


Not to mention that the design is oriented more towards life
under sail, or at least away from the marina & yacht club.
The BeneHuntaLina thrives close to the nursery but usually
doesn't fare well out in the jungle.

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.

Now I just have to say a little about the crab crusher
attitude... heavy is not necessarily better. A few years
back there was a big storm swept thru a cove in the Baja,
broke a bunch of cruisers loose and set them onto the beach.
An Olson 40 (California built ULDB) was among those that
broke loose, along with a Valiant and a Westsail. All three
hit the rocks, and the Westsail ended up piling onto the
Olson, which had cosmetic damage. The Valiant had some hull
damage from the rocks. The Westsail was totalled.

A boat that is well engineered and strongly built does not
have to be super heavy. In fact, under normal sailing
conditions the higher performance boat will be much handier,
easier to maneuver, as well as just plain faster.

"The only vehicle that benefits from additional unnecessary
weight is a steam roller." -Uffa Fox

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"The only vehicle that benefits from additional unnecessary
weight is a steam roller." -Uffa Fox

Brilliant!

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.


All good points, Gary, but we did our homework carefuly. ALL of the
35s5's we looked at had held up as well or better than most others of
the same age. Even the heavily raced 35s5's were solid. Their interiors
and cushions had taken a beating. Expensive to replace as you well
know. There are zero cases of blister problems with the 35s5, or any
other serious problems for that matter. It's known to be a stout boat
built to a higher standard than the Oceanus series. Would the 35s5 be
my first pick for offshore sailing? No, nor would ANY of the boats in
this group.
For the sailing that most of the folks here do, a 35s5 is a better
choice and more fun to sail than their current picks.

RB
35s5
NY

to find more than a couple of boats that combine her performance and
accomodations per foot.


Malarkey. Want me to publish the list again?


Doug, you are a LIAR. You NEVER posted a list (outside of a few
examples) that can do what the 35s5 does at her size and price...not
even close. Only the C&C 34XL CB is a true contender.
But I'll give you yet ANOTHER chance. Here's the criteria...pretty
basic and easy to find these days if you're willing to spend 150K or
more....

34-36 foot boat built after 1988
PHRF below 140 (aprox)-quick boat)
AFT CABIN
SWIM PLATFORM
Draft under 6 feet
Cost under 75K

Go ahead, Doug. Your last list had one or more features missing from
EVERY boat. Even I could do better. Show us you're not a liar!!!

RB
35s5
NY