I continue to follow this fantastic thread in lurk mode. So much to be gained here. I hope I can contribute some day. Special thanks to Paulo and the other regulars.
Regarding interiors, excuse me if this is a stupid question, but the thought arises.....I assume much of even higher end boats' interior surfaces consist of laminated wood trim on less expensive backing board of some sorts (marine grade plywood, etc.). Of course there's still a need for solid wood in high traffic/impact areas.
If one is ok w/ laminated wood for much of the interior surfaces, why not choose something other than plywood as the backing surface? I mean, why not "laminate" (choose whatever process you wish to affix to surfaces) the same really nice wood trim to something that is lighter and more resistant to water damage vs wood. Why not affix it to fiberglass or some structured, lightweight, impervious to water damage type surface? Of course you'd still likely use solid wood in certain areas, but why not have the best of both worlds: beautiful wood fascia while minimizing weight and avoiding the issues associated w/ wood?
I continue to follow this fantastic thread in lurk mode. So much to be gained here. I hope I can contribute some day. Special thanks to Paulo and the other regulars.
Regarding interiors, excuse me if this is a stupid question, but the thought arises.....I assume much of even higher end boats' interior surfaces consist of laminated wood trim on less expensive backing board of some sorts (marine grade plywood, etc.). Of course there's still a need for solid wood in high traffic/impact areas.
If one is ok w/ laminated wood for much of the interior surfaces, why not choose something other than plywood as the backing surface? I mean, why not "laminate" (choose whatever process you wish to affix to surfaces) the same really nice wood trim to something that is lighter and more resistant to water damage vs wood. Why not affix it to fiberglass or some structured, lightweight, impervious to water damage type surface? Of course you'd still likely use solid wood in certain areas, but why not have the best of both worlds: beautiful wood fascia while minimizing weight and avoiding the issues associated w/ wood?
Regards,
Thanks, you are welcomed
The problem is that people just like the look of those wooden interiors that are reminiscent of old wooden boats. It happens the same with teak decks and even if many Americans and some Europeans will prefer the boats without that, even almost all Americans will prefer teak on the cockpit. Of course it has no advantage and increases weight and maintenance but boats are not only a rational thing.
Regarding what you say, that is widely used on offshore racing boats, in some performance cruisers and in many fast multihulls.
One of the brands that use it and sells a lot of boats is Pogo. Here the 10.50:
Other cruising boats like the RM that is made with Plywood and epoxy use the same material (plywood) on the interior. The RM is also a big sales success for this type of boat.
The interiors you posted wasnt the point i was trying to make. I like the interior wood finish much better than the interiors you posted. I was making the point that the more wood one uses the more the boat will weigh. So i was pondering why they dont use a laminate (real) wood finish but laminate it to a lighter material so that you maintain the wood look without the weight and maintenance hassel.
The interiors you posted wasnt the point i was trying to make. I like the interior wood finish much better than the interiors you posted. I was making the point that the more wood one uses the more the boat will weigh. So i was pondering why they dont use a laminate (real) wood finish but laminate it to a lighter material so that you maintain the wood look without the weight and maintenance hassel.
Regards,
That is expensive and only makes sense in expensive fast boats. X yachts use it and I think not only on its performance line put also on the cruising boats. Off course, X yachts are very expensive boats.
I take the opportunity to post the first images of the new XP 55. That is a very fast performance cruising boat with capability to win regattas....and also to cruise in great comfort and in a beautiful interior.
Regarding that interior it is only possible in a very light and performant boat because all those materials, that look like real wood, are synthetic, strong, durable and very light. Off course, that has a price. I guess that make it like a HR, full of natural wood, would be less expensive
Regarding the final results of the Middle sea race some comments about the performance of performance cruisers with less ore equal to 50ft (in real time):
As I have posted before, the more impressive results are from J122 (19º, 27º, 34º) . The fastest stayed at only a 13 hours and a bit from the fastest class 40 boat (16º), a Pogo40s2 (5d 0h 59m), that in a 5 days race is not much, considering that one is a racing boat and the other a performance cruising, but most of all he arrived 7 hours before the second 40class racer (23º) boat and left behind 2 other 40class racers (24º, 26º).
And that was not the only one, the second J 122 (27º) arrived only 6m after the last class 40 racer (26º) and the third one come also among the fastest 45fts, between a Comet 51 and a Xp44.
Curiously a J111, a racing boat has done not so good (40º) but I guess that has to do with the crew and not the sailing boat.
Among the other performance production boats that have done great and for this order, a Mylius 14e55 (17º) a Xp 44 (18º) a First 44.7 (32º), a First 45 (35º), a Comet 45.(37º) On the smaller boats two deserve mention, a racing Elan 350 (48º) and a boat that I did not know, a Marina 36 Carbon (44º), a boat made in Croatia (like the Salona) and that seems to be a very fast boat. Take a look:
The boat has 3.45m of beam, 2.45m of draft, 800Kg of ballast and weights 2450kg.
Even the normal cruising version weights less than 3000kg. Well, no wonder it is fast
I don't look at this results because I am interested in doing racing myself but just to see how the different boats and hull designs perform. I am interested in that
Comparing the result of these boats with a fast old one, a very well sailed Carter 55, the Elan 350 was faster by almost 2 hours and the best J122 by 14 hours.
And I say very well sailed because in compensated time the Carter 55 stayed one place ahead of the Elan 350.
Did anyone of read the article on YACHTING MOUNTHLY November 2012, of different types of cockpits? What each one is best suited for?
Do you agree with what is written there?
Did anyone of read the article on YACHTING MOUNTHLY November 2012, of different types of cockpits? What each one is best suited for?
Do you agree with what is written there?
Sorry mate. After signing that magazine for a long time (since the 80's) I given up about a year back. In my opinion they turned too much to the conservative side of boating. I guess they were going after the readers and sailors that in UK are pretty conservative and has they had on the same group a magazine with more modern views (Yachting world) it would not make sense targeting the same market. Now they seem to have separated the waters. I signed Yacht and Yachting instead. It seems to me that one is improving a lot.
For many months Yachting monthly did not test a single new boat. It seems that they went to far and that is changing but even on the last edition: A test on the Vancouver 27? A boat that Northshore stopped to build years ago because didn't sold a single boat for years? A boat designed 30 or 40 years ago?
Regarding cockpits I don't know what they say about it but cockpits are a function of the hull shape or the type of the boat and the interior options. Center cockpit boats don't have that cockpit because it is best (it is not) but because that's one of the ways to manage to put inside a big aft cabin.
Old boats had tiny cockpits because they used much narrow hulls and that's the space they got for it, boats based on solo racers have huge cockpits because the boats have an huge beam and all the beam brought aft.
Its the type of boat that is important, the cockpit comes with the territory and that is not an independent choice.
I hope that on the next Vendee globe they will make this a mandatory rule. There are talks about that and the sailors are favorable to the idea.
What can be learned and the improvements will be huge and the use on cruising boats will be just a step away
By the way, the batteries are the same I have in my boat, I don't mean the brand, they are the same model and capacity...well I have two of those for the house service and a smaller one for the engine. I guess they have chosen well
About 10 days to go. Take a look at the Skippers presentation made by Destop news and have as bonus some fantastic images from the "Coastal classic" race in NZ:
Paulo,
Sorry old friend, bit of confusion caused by me re those last posts of mine. Suffice it to say I didn't take in the posts re the Hanse and went straight for the HR. Remember that I am not so concerned with the performance as you are and look more for acceptable comfort levels both inside and out. For that I feel the HR makes most sense, even over the Malo for me. That said, I would also much prefer either the Swede or XC over the Hanse.
Andrews,
Who would not prefer the XC42 over the Hanse? Pity it costs almost three times more and that makes all the difference.
Regarding that story anout the HR making more sense than the Malo in what regards comfort I don't agree with you and I think it is a lot of ********
Some years ago Voile and Voiliers tested at the same time the XC 42 against the Dufour 425, both boats at the same time in the water. Because the Dufour is a much lighter boat they tried to find a difference in sea motion and comfort between the two boats namely in what regards wave passage. Well they could not find any. That is true that the conditions were pretty much normal, I mean the weather was good and they believe and (I agree) that in rough conditions that should make some difference but.....we all sail pretty much on the test sail conditions and avoid bad weather.
So in what regards to make sense having a more heavier and slow boat on account of comfort, if we are nor talking about extreme boats...well
If you remember we looked quite seriously at the previous generation Hanse 400 before we bought the Malo and to be frank it was our overall disappointment with the Hanse that pushed us towards Malo. At the time I'd have gone preferably for a Dehler 45, even over the Malo but there were none available even vaguely in our price range. Hanse for me is just too Ikea down below. Really poor quality fitout in every respect though I admit they have a wonderful layout, shame they make it out of papier mache. if all I wanted was a weekend cruiser that would not be embarassed around the buoys then I guess the Hanse would do but that is not my preference.
Andrew B
I agree about the interior and it is just a shame that they had finished with the epoxy option and that the boat has not a traveler.
The epoxy option made a lot of sense and at 8000 euros it was not expensive for what offered ( a lighter, stronger and waterproof boat).
The Hanse 415 has a lot to offer: the best stability in the class an a boat that is faster than the Oceanis and almost as fast as the Jeanneau.
Connect with Facebook
419Likes
.
