Bavaria Yacht Info
Member Forums => Bavaria Yacht Help! => Topic started by: Pauly on June 12 2020, 10:41
-
Hi All, first post here so hello from me.
The Mrs and myself are planning to upgrade from our current vessel and retire from these shores and spend a few years wending our way south and west until we hopefully arrive at her homeland of New Zealand. And there we will stay and enjoy the delights on offer there.
We have a short list of boats we are considering for what we see as our requirements and the Vision 44 is now on that list.
We have gone through the pros and cons of this particular model elsewhere and are fairly happy we can live with the cons for the benefits brought by the pros.
So my question today is, does anyone have any experience sailing this model around the world, not literally circumnavigating, but hopefully you know what I mean. Our offshore expectations are that we will have to cross some large bodies of water(oceans) to get to the next cruising ground, and would like something comfortable for when we arrive. I appreciate that during an ocean passage it won’t necessarily be in its element, but would it be so dire that it’s not even worth considering this boat?
Over to you guys, hopefully with some interesting stories to share.
Cheers
Paul.
-
maybe you can look at "sailing insieme" on YT. They sail a Bavaria Vision 46 on worldtour. There where no major problems till now.
KLaus
-
Hi Klaus, thanks for the tip. Just had a quick look, unfortunately mein Deutsch isn’t nicht so gut.
P.
-
A kiwi family that did the same journey you are planning in a bavaria
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFBGPXYMVOsOZfyHnKuRw9A
-
The Vision 44 is a J&J design and essentially the same as other models of similar size from the 1998-2009 period except for the raised coachroof and from memory a deeper bulbed lead keel giving a higher ballast ratio and a bigger rig than a 44 cruiser of the period. So, in terms of offshore capability it would probably be better than the cruiser models of the same period. There are a number of youtubes here bavariayacht.org/forum/index.php/topic,2674.0.html in the Scuttlebutt section that feature similar boats.
The Vision model was pitched upmarket from the cruiser to compete with the Jeanneau DS range (among others) and aimed squarely at the private rather than charter market with its more comfortable cabins and higher level of equipment. No doubt it is these features that you have identified already.
It did not sell in huge volumes so you won't see so many reports about it, although it was tested by the mags at the time. However there is no reason to think that it would perform any differently from other Bavarias of similar size.
My only reservation about the boat for 2 people for a liveaboard would be the twin aft cabins rather than one aft and a storage/workshop that is a feature of the newer Farr design Visions. However the second cabin could be adapted for storage in such a way that it could revert to a sleeping cabin in the future.
Are you looking at Manahattan which Clipper have listed?
-
The issue regarding the second aft cabin has been noted and discussed. Probably not up to converting to a workshop but certainly could be extra storage and possibly even a laundry if she gets her way.
We did look at Manhattan, but decided not to proceed with it.
There are a couple of other nice examples on offer at the moment, Netherlands and I think Portugal or Spain. Obviously a bit of a struggle to go and view anything at the moment.
But good to hear your thoughts on the viability of the Vision.
-
The one in the Netherlands looks particularly nice.
For the washing machine, if there are only 2 of you then installing it in the aft loo might be worth consideration. Always think that 2 loos on a 2 person liveaboard is a waste of space and another thing to go wrong! Different of course if you have crew or regular visitors. Loos are high on the list of "hates" on liveaboards.
-
Good level of inventory on the Dutch one. There’s another nice one in Henan but I think we’ve missed it as it’s already under offer. The only concern with the Dutch one is the blue topsides. We are constantly being warned against them because of constant maintenance to keep it looking good and apparently it’s a hard colour to match if repairs are needed. This one has been Awlgripped already so not so much of a faff.
We would probably keep the rear heads intact as we would expect visitors occasionally and it has also been earmarked as the foul weather canine facility.
-
Is the standard draft really only 1.8 m, with a one-minute googling could not find any alternatives for Vision 44...?
-
There were two keel options. The shallow one which the Dutch boat has with a long bulb at the bottom and a deeper one (2.2m) with a shorter bulb. The one in Portugal has the deeper keel. I think they are both lead. I expect the righting moments are much the same, but the shorter chord length of the shallow keel may have a small effect on windward performance. You can see photos of the keels in both sets of particulars.
-
There were two keel options. The shallow one which the Dutch boat has with a long bulb at the bottom and a deeper one (2.2m) with a shorter bulb. The one in Portugal has the deeper keel. I think they are both lead. I expect the righting moments are much the same, but the shorter chord length of the shallow keel may have a small effect on windward performance. You can see photos of the keels in both sets of particulars.
Thanks for the info. Interestingly there's several ORC-certificate of Vision 44 with 2.0 m keel but no certificates available with a shorter keel or with a 2.2 m keel - perhaps the deep keel is actually 2.0 m...? I think "a small effect on windward performance" might be a bit relative term as I think going from 1.8 m to 2.2 m would increase the hydrodynamically effective keel area by about 50% affecting VMG fairly significantly when going to windward. Especially for offshore sailing, I would personally exclude the 1.8 m keel option if deeper ones are available...
-
Don't think it is a simple as that. You may well be right that the deeper keel is 2m. However they are totally different keel shapes as you can see if you look at the photos. There is very little difference between the two on foil area or depth. The shallow keel has a narrow, long bulb and the deeper one a deeper, large. short bulb, so the effective foil area looks similar. In fact I am wondering whether the deeper keel (on the boat in Portugal) is actually lead as the shape and size of the bulb is similar to that used on other iron keels with a very large (relatively) bulb to achieve the weight.
For the type of use the OP is considering not sure that windward performance is a high priority given that the majority of ocean sailing for pleasure is off wind. A big selling point for the Vision over a cruiser in terms of performance measured by distance run per day is the greater sail area for light winds, and in the case of these two boats the folding propeller that is fitted. The latter alone should add between 5-10% of daily distance.
-
I only now looked at the deep(er) keel one in Portugal and you are right regarding the different keel shape so the performance difference may be less. Still, I think that having a deeper keel with it's associated performance boost in any kind of offshore sailing is preferable over the shallow(er) keel. Of course, I am sure the performance is relatively ok with the shallow keel as well, but as there's two options available then why not pick a better one...? :)
-
Good discussion about keels, although looking at the broker specs they both appear to draw 1.8m. Better sailing performance is never undesirable, as long as it doesn’t restrict mooring options too much. The difference between 1.8 and 2 is probably not significant anyway. We chartered a Duffour 44 in Croatia last year with a 2.5m keel. Didn’t present any problems in that part of the world and the boat actually sailed very well.
-
I only now looked at the deep(er) keel one in Portugal and you are right regarding the different keel shape so the performance difference may be less. Still, I think that having a deeper keel with it's associated performance boost in any kind of offshore sailing is preferable over the shallow(er) keel. Of course, I am sure the performance is relatively ok with the shallow keel as well, but as there's two options available then why not pick a better one...? :)
Choice of keel is only one of the many criteria for choosing one boat rather than another. The choice is clearer if you are buying new because you can specify your own blend of options. However when buying used you can only buy what is on offer, which of course reflects the original owner's preferences plus of course any changes or additions subsequent owners have made. Anyone who has bought a used boat knows there are always compromises and you try to optimise your purchase. As you say if the difference in depth is only 20cm (rather than 50cm as in the boats described below) the performance difference will be small. Once loaded up with 2 tonnes of gear and a radar arch plus bimini) suspect you would not notice any difference at all!
As it happens I have bought two new Bavarias and in both cases I chose the shallow keel option. The first was a 37 in 2001 bought initially as a charter boat but with a longer term plan to sail it back to the UK going through the French canals. This would not be possible with a 2m+ draft. Never really noticed any loss in performance most of the time in the Ionian because serious sailing is very limited and charterers never complained. It was only when I got back to northern waters that the less than good windward performance became an issue. Fortunately when I sold the boat, one of the attractions to the buyer was the shallow draft as they too wanted to use the French canals. The boat is now back in the Med.
My current boat is a 2015 33 Cruiser which came with a choice of 1.5 or 2m keels. I specified the shallow keel because Poole where I live and sail is a large shallow harbour and 2m draft is seriously limiting for many of the channels and anchorages. Also my regular passages are east to the Solent and there are two routes out of Poole harbour, one the deep water big ship channel and the other a short cut around the edge of a large drying sandbank. To make full use of the tides both ways means taking the short cut near low water and there is not enough water over the bar for comfort with a 2m draft. The short cut reduces the passage time by as much as 1 hour on a typical 4-6 hour passage. Equally 2m draft restricts access to many of the secluded anchorages around the Solent. Because I sail on my own most of the time ease of handling is high on my list of priorities so I have in mast furling, larger engine, bow thruster, furling cruising chute all of which mean that this boat is far more usable than the 37, even though it is just as heavy and has similar accommodation space.
-
Fully agree with all your points and clearly the shallow keels have been the right choices for you for the reasons you outlined.
That said, although the keel is only one part of the many criteria as you say, it is something that cannot (realistically) be changed where as many other things, equipment, etc can be added or modified with relative ease. And as both keel option of vision 44 are available at the market, I would personally prefer a deep keel one for offshore/bluewater sailing. I do realize that some others prioritize for example getting that extra bit closed to the beach higher and may choose otherwise.
Just to clarify: I have no doubt that both options perform ok offshore and get you from A to B... :)
-
Draught of the Vision 44 is 1.82m (shallow) or 2.18m (deep) from the datasheet. Never trust broker details, they're notoriously incorrect. I'll upload the data sheet to the download section shortly.
-
Thanks for that. Confirms my memory. We looked at the Visions in 2007 when the charter management contract ran out on our 37 but the 2008 crash rather killed that idea! I remember the choice of keels, but don't recall actually seeing the physical difference. The only photos of the ones for sale that show keels are the one in Holland and the one in Portugal. Despite the fact that they are both listed at 1.8m they are totally different shape even though both are 2006 boats. Maybe when we are allowed to travel again, Pauly will get a chance to view both and shed some more light on the subject.
Leaving aside the keel issue, they both look lovely boats.
-
The Dutch Vision 44 has the shallow keel. Easy to distinguish because of the ballast "torpedo" on the bottom:
(https://newimages.yachtworld.com/resize/1/93/30/7079330_20190511032157950_1_XLARGE.jpg)
-
Keels aside, does anyone else have concerns about a spade rudder? I know most boats come with them nowadays and that might imply that they are fine, but people still point out the safety benefits of skeg hung rudders when talking boat choices.
-
The Dutch Vision 44 has the shallow keel. Easy to distinguish because of the ballast "torpedo" on the bottom:
(https://newimages.yachtworld.com/resize/1/93/30/7079330_20190511032157950_1_XLARGE.jpg)
Yes, I agree. That is a keel shape J&J used on other shallow draft models like my 37. The boat in Portugal has a keel that is more like the later Farr boats. It does, however look very bulky for it to be the same weight (as the data sheet implies) if it is lead.
Keels are at the front of my mind just now. I am in the middle of re-coppercoating my keel as the original done when the boat was new in 2015 had failed in patches. I have twice done reasonably successful patch repairs but concluded this time better to start again. Blasted to bare metal yesterday and first coat primer applied. Second coat this morning, third coat in a couple of hours time. Hopefully 2 more coats tomorrow then Coppercoat Thursday if the weather holds.
-
Keels aside, does anyone else have concerns about a spade rudder? I know most boats come with them nowadays and that might imply that they are fine, but people still point out the safety benefits of skeg hung rudders when talking boat choices.
I used to think that skeg was the only way to go for serious blue water sailing. I still think that a well constructed skeg rudder is inherently more robust than a spade rudder, especially in any kind of collision or grounding. However, not all skegs and skeg rudders are well constructed at all - as are not all spade rudders so do not rely blindly on either.
I think a good thing with spade rudders is that you can easily drop and inspect it. Several of the incidents withthem have been due to bad design such as in case of Elan 333's in which there's a sharp taper in the rudderstock right at the are of the highest stress. I have not seen this type of rudderstock in Bavarias. If the rudderstock does not have any, or only very low angle taper, there's no cracks or signs of delamination in the blade and the bearings are fine I think there's relatively little to worry about.
-
Keels aside, does anyone else have concerns about a spade rudder? I know most boats come with them nowadays and that might imply that they are fine, but people still point out the safety benefits of skeg hung rudders when talking boat choices.
Bit of a "yesterday" debate as just about all the designers and builders who were advocates of skeg hung rudders in the past have now gone over to spade rudders. Some like Frers and HR have even adopted twin spade rudders! While there are arguments in favour of greater support for the rudder you have to remember they came in at a time when long keels were giving way to shorter keels and rudders moving aft. If you look at early skegs they had to be strong because rudder loads were high (mostly unbalanced rudders) and stocks small diameter. Over time skegs got shorter and rudders given balance below the skeg to reduce load to the extent they became almost spade rudders with an external lower bearing. Not a big step from there to a full spade rudder.
While the theoretical benefits of a skeg remain, in practice spade rudders have been around on offshore cruising boats for well over 20 years. Apart from some well known design disasters such as the composite stocks used by US Hunter they seem to have proved adequately strong and reliable.
I don't know what other boats you have considered, but if you look back the 1980s were the heyday of the fin and skeg with production boats like Moodys and Westerlys in the 35-45' aimed squarely at the offshore/ liveaboard market. 20 years later they had all just about gone and boats like the Vision had filled that sector of the market. In the premium end it took a little longer for a similar transition. Looking at the ARC entry lists over the years will show the evolution clearly.
Buying used rather than new gives you an enormous almost bewildering choice. With your budget you could get a premium 40-46' like a Bowman, Oyster, HR, Malo, Najad, Contest etc from 80's early 90's or a later Moody from the fin and skeg era or a newer more modern production boat like the Vision. However, the initial purchase price is misleading as the key figure is the total of buying plus the replacements, upgrades etc to get it how you want it. In general, the newer the boat, the less you have to spend post purchase.
There are of course lots of other issues to consider apart from the financial. Older boats tend to be less spacious, have smaller cockpits and more staid sailing performance. Sorting out what is important to you is part of the fun. Doing it for real rather than day dreaming can be daunting, but I guess most in the end come to terms with what is best for them and don't regret their choice.
-
Our regular searches at the moment are HR 42, Najad 440/441, Contest 42-44, Malö 42, Bav Ocean 42 and anything else that presents itself in a similar vein. The Vision was a bit of an experiment to see if a more modern boat would tick some of the boxes. And it did. The only notable exception is the aft cockpit instead of centre cockpit. Everything else is pretty much there. And probably better sailing performance than a Swedish tank from the 80’s.
The problem for me is that the current ‘wisdom’ still says that you need an example of the aforementioned tank to sail off into the sunset with any hope of making it to the end of your journey. However, that wisdom comes from an older generation that sail Westerlys, Salars and the like and have little or no experience of modern production boats other than the rare horror stories of important parts falling off at sea.
What would be good would be to hear from someone who has blazed the trail, so to speak, and is living on and sailing a Vision of the sort I am looking at.
In the meantime it’s good to keep discussing the pros and cons, until such time that the current travel restrictions are relaxed sufficiently to allow us to go and buy a boat.
-
Basically, most modern boats that are CAT A rated will be Ok for world cruising.
A Bavaria will be as good as any, and probably better as they are production line manufactured and made in large quantities. If there was a defect in design of any model, it would be known fairly quickly. The Match 38 had a problem about 20 years ago but I understand a modification fixed their keel problem. A friend bought a 2002 model Bavaria 42 in 2010 ( ex charter) from Croatia and sailed it to Australia, rounding Cape Horne in the process.
The argument between skeg hung rudders and spade rudders is not really a consideration. The skeg hung rudders on HR models from about 2006 to 2012 were latter modified due to flexing.
The big issue is how the crew will cope, rather than how the boat will cope. Generally the higher the displacement/ length ratio the more comfortable and slower the trip. Also, the larger the boat, the more comfortable it tends to be. The main thing that sinks boats is modifications and maintenance issues. The newer the boat, the less problems you are likely to get.
Buy the newest boat you want to live on and remember, even an Ocean crossing is usually less than 28 days and you are buying the boat to cruise on for a number of years.
Craig
"Shirley Valentine"
Gold Coast
Australia
-
Just as we are being reminded in other fields we are the product of our collective past and your "current wisdom" is from the past. Remember the folks who bought centre cockpit fin and skeg boats 20 or 30 years ago were brought up on a diet of Hiscock, Guzwell, Humphrey Barton, the Pyes etc who went off into the unknown, leaving Falmouth behind and not expecting to be heard from for 30 or 40 days at least. They had no weather forecast, basic 18thc navigation and had to prepare for the worst the elements threw at them. All a great big fight against nature. Doing it in 1985 was much the same thing as 1950 but in a bit more comfortable and spacious boat like a Moody 37. This is a peculiarly (almost) British approach and at the time it was mainly British builders serving the market.
The world has moved on since then and the UK is no longer the epicentre of ocean voyaging. That is why I suggested you look at the ARC entry list as not only will you see the changing pattern of boats used but also the nationalities of the entrants. Non Anglo sailors (I say that because typically US sailors have a similar history to the UK in choice of boats) simply don't have those hangups and have readily embraced modern designs. None more so than our antipodean cousins who readily buy European boats in the Med, cruise around for a while and then head back home, some via Cape Horn. Their boat of choice is a Bavaria partly because they are freely available, often ex charter and partly because they are in demand back home. There are youtubes of some of their blogs in the thread in Scuttlebutt.
Older boats of the type you have been looking at are perfectly viable choices, but inevitably on a limited budget they will be old and may well need more than 50% of the purchase price to bring them up to scratch. Even then be prepared for your adventure turning into "mending boats in nice places". Centre cockpits do have their advantages in terms of accommodation for length and many like the separation of living from sleeping area. The smaller raised cockpit also seems to be more secure, particularly in the odd bad weather you might meet. On the other hand you will find that between 75-90% of your time is spent at anchor, mostly, hopefully in nice warm places with deep blue seas around you. You will then bless the large open cockpit with instant access to the sea for a swim or dinghy for going ashore.
I went through a similar process 20 years ago - my project was to end up in the Med in time for retirement with 10 years or so to get to that end point. My first choice was something like a Moody 376 or a Westerly Corsair which were then about 7-10 years old. I quickly became depressed looking at boats with saggy headlinings, leaking windows, collapsed mast steps, mild steel fuel tanks rusting away and which needed half the boat taken apart to replace them. I chartered a Moody 37 in the Med to try it out and quickly discovered how unsuitable it was for living in hot climates. The next year we chartered a Bavaria 42. What a revelation. light, airy, easy to sail, well put together and could be bought new for the same price as an 8-10 year old "quality" British boat. The following year we bought a Bavaria 37 under a charter management scheme. It did 7 years flat out chartering then a further 2 year private use before I sailed it to Spain and then trucked back to UK. Nothing serious broke or fell off and what problems there were came from the heavily used items such as electrics, water systems, loos, most of which are common to all boats.
Fast forward to today and of the centre cockpit boats the Ocean range is superior in my view to all the UK offerings of the time. With a budget of say £100k all in you could get a really good example of a 40 or the less common 42. The Vision range was Bavarias attempt to get back into that market as distinct from the high volume production cruiser range. Same basic formula as the Ocean - higher ballast ratio, bigger rig, better fitout details such as the separate armchairs in the saloon on the 44 and up. Aft cockpit and twin wheels, reflecting both the wider stern sections and the market demand for walkthrough access to the stern. Not many were sold in the UK partly because the "sell up and sailaway" market had moved on from that size/price point, but as you see from the location of the boats now for sale found a ready market in Europe.
Does it meet its brief? To my mind, pretty much so. As I have already mentioned the biggest failing is fitting 2 aft cabins, but there is no reason why you could not convert one (or even both) into a combination of storage and a bunk in such a way that you could revert to two sleeping cabins later, I did something similar with my 37, splitting one cabin into storage under the cockpit side. The two toilets are poor use of space for a 2 person boat but at least they are on opposite sides of the boat so you have one usable on each tack. Otherwise the interior has just about everything you need from both the sailing and living point of view. The boat is a very powerful sailing boat with a big rig and a high by today's standards ballast ratio. Both the boats you are looking at have in mast which together with a good offwind sail will give you good performance in all conditions. A removable inner forestay for a storm jib would be useful. They both have the bigger engine and good electronics that can be easily upgraded if necessary. Those 2 features are a big advantage over older boats where you are likely to see a high hours engine of an obsolete type and a hotch potch of electronics. The only major addition I would make would be a stern gantry for solar and davits to take a RIB of around 2.6m. If you fancy windvane steering it is possible to fit a Hydrovane offset on the transom.
The success of a project such as yours is less to do with the design and construction of the boat and more to do with you and your crew and the way you prepare yourself. The limitation will always be you rather than the boat.
-
You’re spot on Craig, the weakest link in most boats and ships, are the humans on them and whether they can cope with the weather thrown at them. Generally one can say that the bigger the boat the more comfortable it will be, but even ocean behemoths such as VLCC’s can be uncomfortable in bad weather, I know because I’ve been there, and where they too have had to reduce speed in order to go with the flow. Indeed in such situations a smaller vessel could well ride out a storm more comfortably than something larger where it fits the wave and swell pattern better than something larger. Indeed while one ship, a 70 000 tonner, was makeing good more distance astern in bad weather and suffered minor damage, the only ship I ever sailed on that got stopped by the weather with damage that could have been serious if we had not noticed or ignored it, was a 220 000 tonne ship in gigantic seas just south of the Mozambique Channel, but it was nothing that we couldn’t handle ourselves.
-
Excellent posts Gents, all very reassuring to know we are all thinking along the same lines. One of my concerns has been about buying a boat to suit the intended use, and since the majority of the time will be spent hanging around various coastal destinations, is it really necessary to get something like a Rassy, Najad etc? Clearly the answer is ‘no’.
With regards to the issue of crew failing before boat, that is something that has been up there on my list of potential outcomes. The long term goal is to get to NZ in one piece and if that ultimately means finishing the journey without the boat, then so be it. I’m not out to prove myself, just have a nice time and see some of the world without wrecking myself and the Mrs enroute. However, having confidence in your chosen steed plays a fairly big part in crew wellbeing. That, and avoiding an arse kicking from the weather.
I particularly like the comment about mending boats in nice places. Whenever someone mentions Moody, that’s exactly where my train of thought runs off to.
I’m fairly happy now that we could cope in something like the V 44. Having a comfortable environment to look forward to at the end of an arduous leg certainly won’t harm morale.