After the C42 the next one from Bavaria will be the C38. As I have said before, the names of mass-produced sailboats are misleading because they generally refer to the overall length instead of hull length, contrary to what most more expensive boats do. So the C42 is a 39.3ft boat and the C38 has 36.1ft.
But before blaming Bavaria let me tell you Oceanis 41.1, Jeanneau 419, Dufour 412, Hanse 418 are also 39.3ft boats as well as the new Oceanis 40.1, that contrary to what the name indicates is not smaller than the Oceanis 41.1, it has the same hull length.
All this is misleading and RCD should legislate that when a number is the denomination of a boat that number should refer to hull length and not to LOA or any other dimension. But for now, it is arbitrary and at least one of the more expensive brands, X-yachts is using this trick to make believe that the boats are really bigger than what they are.
Back to the Bavaria C38, the design looks nice, kind of a smaller C42 also with the possibility of having 6 winches, a heavier boat than the competition but also with a bigger sail area.
But in what regards weight there is something so odd here that I contacted the designer's cabinet to ask if there was not any mistake regarding the displacement that was given to the press and published on Bavaria's site. I have received a quick reply saying that the weight was correct.
But if we take the keel out of the two boats (with all the ballast) the difference in weight between them will be only 115 kg and that does not make sense because the C42 is a much bigger and more voluminous boat, with 11.98m length for a 4.29m beam while the C38 has a 10.99m length for a 3.98m beam.
The oddity extends itself to the B/D displacement, having the C42 27.9%B/D and the C38 only 24.3% and that is strange because smaller boats normally have a bigger B/D and that's because the formula to calculate the needed AVS to certificate the boat in Class A demands a bigger AVS for boats with smaller displacement (because smaller and less heavy boats need less energy to be capsized).
I don't know the reason for all this. The superior weight of the C38, taking into account its size, suggests it is not built the same way as the C42 even if nothing is said about it. Maybe the C38 has a monolithic hull and not a sandwich one as the C42. I have not yet seen the C38 specification file and maybe it casts some more light on this subject.
But that does not explain why they, on a similar keel with less 5cm draft, chose to put comparatively much less ballast on the C38 than on the C42. In fact to have the same B/D as the C42 the C38 should have 449kg more ballast (adding to the 2205kg) and then the displacement would be 9519 kg, only 159 kg less than the C42, when taking into account the dimensions of both boats, at least a ton should separate their displacement. That is the case on all other mass-production brands.
While the dimensions and the design data of the C42 look good to me I cannot say the same about the C38 even if the boats seem very similar in the way they look and have similar hulls.
Certainly "De gustibus non est disputandum" but I would not call it a "good looking boat". To me she looks fat, sort of a mini van...not certainly "sleek and fast". I think designers have pushed the maximization of internal volumes a little too much. Of course they disguise it with supposed advantages in longitudinal and transversal stability (that's may be te reason why they claim anyway class A?) but a barge also have a huge stability...I fully expect in the near future the scow bow concept to take onto the mass market and we will have two cabin on the front too ;-)
I understand your point and I agree. I should have said, looking good for a mass production boat with 36ft LOL.
Fact is that for having more interior volume all mass production boats are fat, with huge freeboards and some performance cruisers tend to go the same way, even if not so much.
I have a 40.9ft performance boat and a modern mass production Yacht with 39,3ft (jeanneau 410, Bavaria c42 and all the others) even if almost 2 feet smaller, on the water, have at least more 30cm of freeboard.
Side by side at the marina the difference is quite impressive, they have the freeboard of a 45ft cruiser-racer.
But I am not criticizing because it is what most really want and they gladly have the bigger interior space than a more beautiful boat with less windage.
And taking into account the huge freeboards designers do an excellent job in making them and the extra volume not so conspicuous as they would be if they where not trying to disguise them.
That's a good point, they don't look as bad as they might. I'll go as far as to say some of the production hulls look great (in a unconventional way), like the Oceanis 46.1. Even the Bavaria c42 from certain angles. It's interesting to follow their hull innovations too. Like the chines brought forward on the former, or the Vbow of the latter. Although more first hand information on how they sail in light air, or heavy weather for that matter, would be much more interesting.
Yes you are right. Regarding the Oceanis 46.1 on some tests the impression they gave about the boat was that it is extraordinarily fast.
Of course, they had tested it with strong to high medium wind, and most of the time downwind, but reading such tests the idea that passes to the public is that the boat is so fast that even on the racecourse it can get good results, in real-time.
It happens the same with RM yachts that they call performance boats, but when you have those yachts racing on the Fastnet or in the Middle-Sea-Race and compare their real performance with much lesser flashy boats like a J122e, a XP-38, a Comet 41s, a Salona 41 or a First 40 you will see that they are not fast and are much slower in real-time, so much that it is clear that they are not on the same league.
That's why I look at real-time race results to access comparative yacht performance in different wind and sea conditions.
the same discrepancy I regarding weight for similarly sized boats can be found for X4.0 and X4.3: Again following X-Yacht's officially published data on their web site: X4.0: Displacement: 8.10 tons ballast: 3.05 tons -> weight of hull 5.05 tons X4.3: Displacement: 8.85 tons ballast: 3.80 tons -> weight of hull 5.05 tons -> ????
I wrote to X-Yachts on it, when the X4.0 came out, no answer. I wrote to the German dealer, no (meaningful) answer.
You are absolutely right, except for my name (Paulo). I will consider making a post about it because this lack of seriousness is growing and if it does not become public it will grow even more.
These fantasies started long ago with the stability curves being some obviously not correct and now it grows on the displacements and this is well known to boat designers to the point that one of them said to me that they, contrary to others gave true boat displacements.
This is only possible because boat certification for the big brands is made on the paper and they don't verify physically neither the boat stability (stability curve) neither the boat displacement. I wonder how long this charade is going to endure.
In this case, being both boats built the same way, it is clear that it is the X4-3 (41ft) displacement that is not right being probably the one of the X4-0(37.7ft) more or less correct.
Normally by design, a smaller boat has a bigger B/D but assuming that the B/D between the two boats is the same the X4-3 should displace about 10 000kg.
le different of C42 and C38 is only a smal variation of the length they have same cusin same bathroom dimension same table to have standard mass production to reduce costes, finally the weight is almost the same .
The Bavaria 38 has a very nicely designed interior and that lead some sail magazines to imply that it was the best boat for the price, but in fact there is a big difference in size between the two boats, in length (1.0m or 3.3 feet) and in beam (4.30m to 3.98m) and that in what regards hull form generated stability makes for a big difference.
But also in what regards stability the Bavaria 42 has a lot more coming from the keel (lowering of CG), having more 419 kg of ballast, that in fact corresponds to a bigger difference because the ballast has also a lower CG, due to a bigger draft (2.0 to 2.10 m).
All this make very odd the small difference in displacement between the two boats, only 684 kg, even less if we discount the difference in ballast, just a 265kg difference, for a big difference in the size of the hull.
That suggests the boats are not built the same way and I don't see the fact they have a close displacement, as a positive thing for the 38, quite the contrary because while the similar weight increases a lot drag on the 38, the 42 has a lot more stability, and you can see that in the difference in sail area between the two boats: 79 to 98 m2 (both with genoa).
All this makes the 42 a much better sailboat than the 38, and I am not even talking about safety stability, where smaller boats should have a better one, to compensate the smaller overall stability (RCD points that way), and on these two boats it is the opposite, being the one on 42 better than the one on the 38, due to a smaller B/D on the 38 (24.3% to 26.8%) being that difference increased by a bigger draft on the 42 (2.10 to 2.00).
Certainly "De gustibus non est disputandum" but I would not call it a "good looking boat". To me she looks fat, sort of a mini van...not certainly "sleek and fast". I think designers have pushed the maximization of internal volumes a little too much. Of course they disguise it with supposed advantages in longitudinal and transversal stability (that's may be te reason why they claim anyway class A?) but a barge also have a huge stability...I fully expect in the near future the scow bow concept to take onto the mass market and we will have two cabin on the front too ;-)
ReplyDeleteI understand your point and I agree. I should have said, looking good for a mass production boat with 36ft LOL.
DeleteFact is that for having more interior volume all mass production boats are fat, with huge freeboards and some performance cruisers tend to go the same way, even if not so much.
I have a 40.9ft performance boat and a modern mass production Yacht with 39,3ft (jeanneau 410, Bavaria c42 and all the others) even if almost 2 feet smaller, on the water, have at least more 30cm of freeboard.
Side by side at the marina the difference is quite impressive, they have the freeboard of a 45ft cruiser-racer.
But I am not criticizing because it is what most really want and they gladly have the bigger interior space than a more beautiful boat with less windage.
And taking into account the huge freeboards designers do an excellent job in making them and the extra volume not so conspicuous as they would be if they where not trying to disguise them.
That's a good point, they don't look as bad as they might. I'll go as far as to say some of the production hulls look great (in a unconventional way), like the Oceanis 46.1. Even the Bavaria c42 from certain angles. It's interesting to follow their hull innovations too. Like the chines brought forward on the former, or the Vbow of the latter. Although more first hand information on how they sail in light air, or heavy weather for that matter, would be much more interesting.
DeleteYes you are right. Regarding the Oceanis 46.1 on some tests the impression they gave about the boat was that it is extraordinarily fast.
DeleteOf course, they had tested it with strong to high medium wind, and most of the time downwind, but reading such tests the idea that passes to the public is that the boat is so fast that even on the racecourse it can get good results, in real-time.
It happens the same with RM yachts that they call performance boats, but when you have those yachts racing on the Fastnet or in the Middle-Sea-Race and compare their real performance with much lesser flashy boats like a J122e, a XP-38, a Comet 41s, a Salona 41 or a First 40 you will see that they are not fast and are much slower in real-time, so much that it is clear that they are not on the same league.
That's why I look at real-time race results to access comparative yacht performance in different wind and sea conditions.
Hello Paolo,
ReplyDeletethe same discrepancy I regarding weight for similarly sized boats can be found for X4.0 and X4.3:
Again following X-Yacht's officially published data on their web site:
X4.0: Displacement: 8.10 tons ballast: 3.05 tons -> weight of hull 5.05 tons
X4.3: Displacement: 8.85 tons ballast: 3.80 tons -> weight of hull 5.05 tons -> ????
I wrote to X-Yachts on it, when the X4.0 came out, no answer. I wrote to the German dealer, no (meaningful) answer.
KR,
Steffen
Hi Steffen,
DeleteYou are absolutely right, except for my name (Paulo). I will consider making a post about it because this lack of seriousness is growing and if it does not become public it will grow even more.
These fantasies started long ago with the stability curves being some obviously not correct and now it grows on the displacements and this is well known to boat designers to the point that one of them said to me that they, contrary to others gave true boat displacements.
This is only possible because boat certification for the big brands is made on the paper and they don't verify physically neither the boat stability (stability curve) neither the boat displacement. I wonder how long this charade is going to endure.
In this case, being both boats built the same way, it is clear that it is the X4-3 (41ft) displacement that is not right being probably the one of the X4-0(37.7ft) more or less correct.
Normally by design, a smaller boat has a bigger B/D but assuming that the B/D between the two boats is the same the X4-3 should displace about 10 000kg.
NEW BAVARA” !!?? Again missing an I at the title ?
ReplyDeleteThanks. It seems I am getting old LOL
DeleteCongratulations for keep things as simple as possible.
ReplyDeleteCiao
A
le different of C42 and C38 is only a smal variation of the length they have same cusin same bathroom dimension same table to have standard mass production to reduce costes, finally the weight
ReplyDeleteis almost the same .
The Bavaria 38 has a very nicely designed interior and that lead some sail magazines to imply that it was the best boat for the price, but in fact there is a big difference in size between the two boats, in length (1.0m or 3.3 feet) and in beam (4.30m to 3.98m) and that in what regards hull form generated stability makes for a big difference.
DeleteBut also in what regards stability the Bavaria 42 has a lot more coming from the keel (lowering of CG), having more 419 kg of ballast, that in fact corresponds to a bigger difference because the ballast has also a lower CG, due to a bigger draft (2.0 to 2.10 m).
All this make very odd the small difference in displacement between the two boats, only 684 kg, even less if we discount the difference in ballast, just a 265kg difference, for a big difference in the size of the hull.
That suggests the boats are not built the same way and I don't see the fact they have a close displacement, as a positive thing for the 38, quite the contrary because while the similar weight increases a lot drag on the 38, the 42 has a lot more stability, and you can see that in the difference in sail area between the two boats: 79 to 98 m2 (both with genoa).
All this makes the 42 a much better sailboat than the 38, and I am not even talking about safety stability, where smaller boats should have a better one, to compensate the smaller overall stability (RCD points that way), and on these two boats it is the opposite, being the one on 42 better than the one on the 38, due to a smaller B/D on the 38 (24.3% to 26.8%) being that difference increased by a bigger draft on the 42 (2.10 to 2.00).