Until today the 57 was probably the better-looking HR, a beautiful yacht, but the HR50 seems even better proportioned, and that is amazing, being a smaller boat. Unfortunately, it is also the HR with the smaller B/D and AVS ever, more or less 113.5º.
Hallberg Rassy 50
It is true that due to its very substantial displacement (21000kg) and big hull form stability, the 50 has a big overall stability, but it is also true that if capsized at 90º by a very strong gust of wind (and/or a big wave) the 50 is only making the same RM to right itself up as the one that is generated with about 17º of heel, while on the 44, at 90º, the RM corresponds to the one at 24º of heel, a proportionally much bigger RM at 90º, that corresponds also to a bigger AVS (124º).
Hallberg Rassy 57
The 57 and 64, much bigger yachts, have also a bigger AVS (118º - 124º) and will be making proportionally more force to right themselves up at 90º, than the 50, even if they are much heavier boats, with a much bigger overall stability. Hard to understand why HR chose to have a worse final stability on the 50.
As I had discussed here before this tendency has an origin in the RCD minimum stability requirements for certifying a yacht in class A. Those requirements vary with displacement. A smaller, and therefore lighter yacht, will have a need of a bigger AVS and a heavier and bigger one can have a smaller one. That seems right because a lighter and smaller yacht has more chances to be capsized or rolled than a bigger one, but that assuming that the AVS and stability of a bigger yacht are enough to allow it a good safety margin in extreme circumstances.
What seems wrong to me is the minimum AVS for bigger yachts, which I find too optimistic. It is given by this formula: 130 - 0,002m but always ≥ 100°, being m the boat mass. This means that if a boat displaces 15000 kg, or more, the minimum AVS is only 100º and if we consider that a boat with an AVS with 120º takes an average of 2 minutes to right itself up from an inverted position (to encounter a wave that can do the job), a boat with 100º AVS, with the weight of the sails (furled on the mast and on the front furler) and radar dome, will take an eternity to right itself up...if he can do it at all, before being flooded and sunk.
Regarding the RCD requirements for a boat of this displacement (100º), the 113.5ºAVS seems not bad, and it is certainly much better than the one of an Amel 50, that has a similar keel, 20cm less draft and only 26.1% B/D (35,2% B/D- Hallberg Rassy 50).
I would like very much to have a look at the Amel 50 stability curve, which in what regards safety stability and AVS, can only be much worse than the one from the HR50, but that is something they don't disclose, contrary to HR shipyard.
Regarding what I think about all this subject you can have a look here:
A 114º AVS is average among mass-production boats. They manage that with less ballast, bigger drafts and more modern torpedo keels. All this put together allows for the same RM (and AVS) with a smaller B/D, and a smaller displacement.
It is time for Hallberg Rassy to continue the design update that started more than a decade ago and extend that update to the only thing that remained unchanged, the keel design that is now the biggest limiting factor on performance.
That and a bigger effort in what regards weight control, using epoxy resins, carbon reinforcements and slightly lighter furniture, is the way to continue that evolution towards better sailing boats, maintaining the building quality and the seaworthiness that were always present in HR sailboats.
The HR 50 is really a 50ft boat, the length refers to the hull lenght, the LOA is 53.6ft. This is important because more and more sailboats have their designation referring to the LOA. With a 5.0m beam, it is a beamy boat. The Amel 50 has 4.79, the Solaris 50 has 4.55 and the Bavaria C50 has the same beam but 0.8ft less in length.
I know, these are different sailboats with different quality levels and different prices, but what I want with this small comparison is to show the differences in hull design that are not as far as many may think, with the exception of the Solaris that is a narrower boat, with much finer entries.
The Solaris 50 has a slightly smaller B/D, if compared with the HR50 (34.5% - 35.2%) but the RM (and AVS) are much increased on the Solaris by the bigger draft and torpedo keel. The difference in standard draft is huge (2.80m to 2.35) and the type of keel (torpedo to bulbed keel) makes a huge difference, and the two things put together overcompensated the smaller B/D and the Solaris will have not only a better AVS, as better safety stability. The Solaris can also have a 2.35m draft but in that case, the ballast is much more as well as the B/D.
HR 50. Below Amel, Bavaria and Solaris
The Amel is the one with the smallest draft (2.15m), the smallest B/D (26.1%) and, like the HR, it has a relatively inefficient bulbed keel. The Bavaria C50 has about the same draft as the HR (2.30) a more efficient L tropedo keel and 29.1%B/D. In what concerns displacement, the HR50 and the Amel 50 are close (21000 kg to 20550) and the same happens with the Solaris and the Bavaria (14200kg to 15490kg).
The Solaris is lighter due to a bigger draft and a more efficient keel, which allows it to have much less ballast than the HR ( less 2500kg), for the same effect, but also due to much less heavy furniture, some sandwich composite bulkheads, and carbon reinforcements on the boat structure.
The Solaris is 1200kg lighter than the Bavaria even if it has 500kg more ballast). That's possible due to better and lighter building materials, as well as the use of more efficient (and costly) building processes and lighter (but better quality) furniture as well as more draft and a more efficient keel (with a lead bulb).
Regarding sail performance, the differences are clear, and the more powerful yacht, and easily the fastest, in all circumstances, is the Solaris 50 with a 27.8 SA/D and a 136.1 D/L.
The Bavaria and the Hallberg Rassy will have very similar performances and only with stronger winds ( upwind and beam reaching), the Hallberg Rassy will be able to be faster, assuming the HR has the option with bigger sails, otherwise the Bavaria will be faster in lighter winds. The Bavaria has a 20 SA/D and 149D/L. Hallberg Rassy has standard 17.6 SA/D but with bigger sails (and probably a bigger mast) can have 20 SA/D for a 180.1 D/L.
The Amel is the slowest boat in all circumstances and due to the small B/D ratio will not have the extra power the HR will have over Bavaria in stronger winds and probably, in such conditions, it will have worse performance than the Bavaria. The Amel has a 17.1 SA/D and a 187.8 D/L.
Regarding safety stability (stability curve over 80º) the Solaris will be the one with better performance and a higher ratio between RM/D, having the bigger AVS and being the fastest to recover from a knock-down.
Then come the HR and the Bavaria, that for a mass-production boat has a very good performance. However, it is worth considering that the much bigger HR displacement will give it the biggest overall stability, considerably bigger than the Solaris or Bavaria ones, and just a bit bigger than the one of the Amel, in this case due to more hull form stability, more ballast and more draft.
The Amel 50, due to the low draft, low-efficiency keel, and low B/D, has a deceiving safety stability for a brand that is looked upon as one specialized in bluewater cruisers. But the Amel 50, due to the much bigger displacement, has a bigger overall stability, if compared with the Solaris or Bavaria, that, however, in extreme circumstances will hardly compensate the poor safety stability.
Some may misinterpret what I am saying regarding sail performance between Bavaria and the Halberg Rassy. Sure, Bavaria has a very good performance for a mass-production yacht but the Halberg-Rassy equals Bavaria's performance in nice weather and betters it in stronger conditions, having similar safety stability and overall bigger stability.
That is not easy to manage even if I would have liked to see on the HR50 a better final stability and a sail performance that outsailed Bavaria in all circumstances.
That would have been possible if the HR keel had an efficient design and if some extra care would be taken in what regards reducing weight, using epoxy resins and carbon reinforcements on the keel structure. Maybe the next step for HR.
HR50
But there is one thing that seems very hard to improve and that's the interior that on this yacht seems just perfect and probably the best I have ever seen on a 50ft sailboat. I have not been inside this one but I have been inside all other HR, including the 57 and 64, and even if those two have bigger and more voluminous interiors, bigger is not necessarily nicer, and in what regards design, proportions, and perfection nothing beats this one.
Amel 50
My sincere congratulations to the design team that scored very high in all points, from functionality to illumination, volume style and coziness.
The interior storage is very good and well thought, the engine room is big enough for the engine, generator and all systems, the electrical board seems incredibly simple for a boat with so much depending on electricity.
The same cannot be said in what regards outside storage that is not bad but it is far from good. There is a big sail and fender locker at the bow but even if the two lockers at the stern seem adequate (only on the king cabin version) their opening hatch is quite small limiting their use. There is also a central storage space under the cockpit floor, difficult to access due to the cockpit table and a locker under one of the seats, probably for the life-raft.
Bavaria C50
But the only real bad solution on this boat is the swimming platform, ridiculously dimensioned for a sailboat of this size, far away from the water and with difficult access from the cockpit. All the rest you can like it or not, but they are just preferences. Not the case with the swinging platform that lacks the careful design that we can find anywhere on this yacht and looks like an add-on, something amateurish in design if compared with all the rest.
And then there is the way the boat is sailed. A 50ft boat is on the limit of what you can sail solo or just with the help of your wife, if that is done manually without the cost of complicated electric and hydraulic systems that are less reliable, costly and demand a generator to be used frequently.
Solaris 50
They choose to make this yacht a fully electrical assisted sailboat with electric in-mast furling and electric headsail furler, no traveller for the main and only three electrical winches. Of course there are back up systems but they are designed for emergency use, not for comfortable use.It's a boat designed to be sailed pushing buttons, like bigger yachts are (dispense a huge crew). And of course, this implies the use of a generator, which is standard equipment.
HR50
So, in what regards sailing it, you love it or you hate it, but it will be a very easy boat to sail providing everything keeps working.
Even if these systems are now much more reliable than a decade ago, they need much bigger and expensive maintenance and, as all electrical systems, they are not as reliable as manual ones, so it is up to you to know if this is what you want as a sailing boat, a kind of miniature maxi-yacht, or if you want to have fun while sailing, trimming better the sails and adjusting them manually.
All this, the magnificent interior and all the automatisms and electrical systems, come with a high price and the Hallberg Rassy 50 will cost 1.16 million euros at the factory without VAT or extras. Truly a 50ft boat designed without looking at costs and that's why I find it particularly annoying that this is the HR with the smallest AVS and the poorest final stability.
The Solaris 50 will cost at the shipyard, without VAT, about 700000 euros, the Amel 50 about 900000 euros and the Bavaria C50 about 300000 euros. In any case, a well-equipped boat with VAT will cost 30 to 40% more, and in what it regards, the Hallberg Rassy comes with more standard equipment than the others.
sometimes I wonder if the stability/design differences among "bluewater boats" and production ones are getting thinner to a point where the price delta is not justified anymore. Price is an important part of the equation and I wonder whether people buying 40-50 footers today wouldn't switch to a bigger Bavaria than, say a 40ft Amel or HR. After all, size also plays a role in stability, and budget wise you can compare a 40ft Amel with a much bigger production boat. In the meanwhile, Hanse and Bavaria are increasing their B/D compared to French builders, and getting closer to ratios which seem respectable for bluewater - all of this without increasing price. Of course if you trget a size and want the best product on the market you'll still get an Hallberg Rassy, but how many sailors don't think in terms of price to value or are really fully budget-unconstrained? It will be interesting to see how it unfolds, Amel in particular appears to be playing a dangerous game....
Well, dangerous game? They are getting very well out of it, boat of the year and big sales.
The truth is that more and more sailboats are sold on the boat shows by their interior and by the prestige a brand has, and the nautical press is helping.
If boats were sold by its building quality (out of the interior furniture) or seaworthiness you would see brands, on their brochures and propaganda, talking in detail about the way their boats are built, the diferences between their boats and the others, why theirs are better, showing stability curves and explaining why their boats are more seaworthy, better designed and better built.
Even if you go to the shipyards' internet site the information regarding how the boats are built or it is inexistent or have almost no information. Some are so outdated that would give a lousy impression about the brand, if somebody looked at them. Look at this one for instance: https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/resources/how-a-hull-is-built/
Just a clarification: you have to look boat by boat. Not all boats from German shipyards have better safety stability than boats from French Shipyards. Have a look at the new Bavaria C38.
bom dia Paulo, thank you for sharing your analyses! Undoubtedly the issue of static and dynamic stability is a critical one that deserves more attention. To me it's a bit similar to active and passive safety equipment in vehicles ... often overlooked, but for vehicles there is an independent testing and rating system (NCAP). I'd love to get something like this implemented for yachts as well ... BTW, this topic would really make for a great round table discussion (or webinar, these days ...), e.g. I'd be curious to hear what the engineers from Berret-Racoupeau have to say about this. If I remember correctly the Wauquiez PS 42 has a ballast-displacement ratio of only 26% ... Best, Markus
I talked with Olivier Racoupeau about the Wauquiez 42DS low B/D, low AVS and security stability. He said that if the boat had more ballast it would be slower in lower winds (obviously) and that are the conditions where most would use it.
Said also that the AVS is bigger then the RCD minimum required (also true) and that most sailors would not sail the boat in bad or extreme weather….. and that is also true.
What he said regarding the Wauquiez 42 it is also true for the Amel (designed also by his cabinet). If the boat has considerably more ballast (to have a bigger AVS and a better safety stability) then it needs more sail area, a bigger mast, a stronger hull structure , to be as fast in light and medium light wind, as the boat with lower ballast, and all that makes the boat more expensive.
The problem here is that Wauquiez or Amel are brands that have an image as bluewater boats, boats that are supposed to have a better seaworthiness than main mass production boats, with a better safety stability and a better AVS, yachts safer to sail in bad weather.
The problem is that the sailors that will buy those boats for those reasons are being mislead.
That is why I think it is important to create a new RCD class with higher requirements in what regards stability and also higher requirements in several other items, namely waterproof bullheads at the bow and transom (particularly one that separates the rudder area from the rest of the boat).
Above a significant price tag, pleasure boats are no longer boats, but just luxury items.
How many luxury sport cars have even gone on a race track, driven by their owners ? How many luxury 4 wd have even seen mud ?
While they are new, most luxury sailboats will, in the best case, cross Atlantic in a kind of ARC rally, with the help of a professional crew, and go back on the deck of a yacht transport.
I don't understand your comment. It is the same as saying that expensive houses are not houses anymore, even if people live in them, or expensive cars are not cars anymore, even if they are driven everyday.
Cars, even sportive cars are not designed for the race tracks but for being driven on roads. Luxury 4wd are not designed for extensive off-road use. The ones that are are almost as expensive as those (if they have the same power).
The use as nothing to do with a yacht being expensive or not, even if the quality generally has.
Muito boa a reportagem e os comentários. Parabéns! Sem quere ser inconveniente, poderia explicar melhor do que se trata o AVS e a sua importância? Entendo a relação lastro, área velica e não entendi bem o cálculo do AVS em termos leigos. Abraços
O cálculo do AVS e da curva de estabilidade é complicado e os desenhadores têm de o fazer para certificar o barco numa das classes possíveis. É um dos elementos que é requerido. A maioria das marcas não torna pública a curva de estabilidade e o AVS, mas não é o caso da HR e podes encontrar no seu site, para cada barco, a respectiva curva de estabilidade e o AVS (o ângulo a partir do qual o barco se vira).
Para mais informação sobre o assunto, a importância do AVS, da estabilidade de segurança e da relação da mesma com o AVS, há vários artigos no blog:
Hi Paulo, Thanks for this very interesting comparison... With regards to the stability of the HR50, did you take into account they propose it with a carbon mast/boom... Did you consider this in your reasoning? Would it make a considerable difference?
It will make a difference but not a considerable one. Anyway the B/D on the 50, the design of the keel and the draft are similares to the ones of the 57 and 64 and both have better stability curves (and being bigger sailboats it shouldn't be like that).
I don't believe that the being comparatively more beamy has such a big effect on the final stability and AVS (it will have on the negative stability) so maybe there is something odd about that stability curve.
Thinking better, the fact that the 50 is comparatively beamier than the 57 (or 64) and has a large tankage contributes for a worse security stability curve and AVS.
The beamier boat will enter less in the water and that contributes for a higher center of gravity on the diesel and water tanks and that will have a negative effect on the AVS and safety stability.
We can see that on the 57 the AVS is better with full tanks while on the 50 it is about the same. https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/fileadmin/user_upload/1370-GZ-Curve.jpg https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/fileadmin/user_upload/HR50stabilitycurve.jpg
Hi Paulo, A very informative blog. Presumably when the stability and AVS of a boat is important in very heavy weather one would have most of the sails reefed. The HR 50 with its in mast furling would have the weight of the main high above the deck. I would have thought this would significantly reduce the AVS compared to having it on the boom.
You are correct. With the sails reefed on a furling mast the AVS will be the same as if you have all sail out.
I am sure they offer also in boom furling (considerably more expensive) and that has the advantage of having less weight up when the sails are reefed .(increasing the AVS) and the possibility of bring the sail down in the eventuality of jamming, a thing that is very dificult to do (almost impossible with bad weather) on a furling mast.
Olá Paulo, Parabéns pelo(s) artigo(s). Como e onde vc. encaixaria em termos de qualidade os barcos da Oyster nesse coquetel de HR, Amel e outros prestigiosos blue water silboats?
É dificil de dizer. Como sabe há uns anos um acidente com a perda de uma quilha de um iate deixou a reputação bem em baixo, mas devo dizer que recuperaram bem a confiança dos clientes.
De qualquer forma a Oyster especializou-se em Iates de grandes dimensões e só recentemente voltou a produzir alguns barcos mais "pequenos", sendo que o mais pequeno é um 50 pés.
Não gosto muito dos barcos, nem da denominação de bluewater sailboats mas diria que são melhores do que os Amel, pelo menos no que se refere à estabilidade.
Diria que no que se refere à qualidade a Contest continua a estar no topo embora os desenhos pudessem ser ligeiramente mais modernos.
Hi Paulo,
ReplyDeletesometimes I wonder if the stability/design differences among "bluewater boats" and production ones are getting thinner to a point where the price delta is not justified anymore. Price is an important part of the equation and I wonder whether people buying 40-50 footers today wouldn't switch to a bigger Bavaria than, say a 40ft Amel or HR. After all, size also plays a role in stability, and budget wise you can compare a 40ft Amel with a much bigger production boat. In the meanwhile, Hanse and Bavaria are increasing their B/D compared to French builders, and getting closer to ratios which seem respectable for bluewater - all of this without increasing price. Of course if you trget a size and want the best product on the market you'll still get an Hallberg Rassy, but how many sailors don't think in terms of price to value or are really fully budget-unconstrained? It will be interesting to see how it unfolds, Amel in particular appears to be playing a dangerous game....
Well, dangerous game? They are getting very well out of it, boat of the year and big sales.
DeleteThe truth is that more and more sailboats are sold on the boat shows by their interior and by the prestige a brand has, and the nautical press is helping.
If boats were sold by its building quality (out of the interior furniture) or seaworthiness you would see brands, on their brochures and propaganda, talking in detail about the way their boats are built, the diferences between their boats and the others, why theirs are better, showing stability curves and explaining why their boats are more seaworthy, better designed and better built.
Even if you go to the shipyards' internet site the information regarding how the boats are built or it is inexistent or have almost no information. Some are so outdated that would give a lousy impression about the brand, if somebody looked at them. Look at this one for instance:
https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/resources/how-a-hull-is-built/
Just a clarification: you have to look boat by boat. Not all boats from German shipyards have better safety stability than boats from French Shipyards. Have a look at the new Bavaria C38.
bom dia Paulo,
ReplyDeletethank you for sharing your analyses! Undoubtedly the issue of static and dynamic stability is a critical one that deserves more attention. To me it's a bit similar to active and passive safety equipment in vehicles ... often overlooked, but for vehicles there is an independent testing and rating system (NCAP). I'd love to get something like this implemented for yachts as well ...
BTW, this topic would really make for a great round table discussion (or webinar, these days ...), e.g. I'd be curious to hear what the engineers from Berret-Racoupeau have to say about this. If I remember correctly the Wauquiez PS 42 has a ballast-displacement ratio of only 26% ...
Best,
Markus
I talked with Olivier Racoupeau about the Wauquiez 42DS low B/D, low AVS and security stability. He said that if the boat had more ballast it would be slower in lower winds (obviously) and that are the conditions where most would use it.
DeleteSaid also that the AVS is bigger then the RCD minimum required (also true) and that most sailors would not sail the boat in bad or extreme weather….. and that is also true.
What he said regarding the Wauquiez 42 it is also true for the Amel (designed also by his cabinet). If the boat has considerably more ballast (to have a bigger AVS and a better safety stability) then it needs more sail area, a bigger mast, a stronger hull structure , to be as fast in light and medium light wind, as the boat with lower ballast, and all that makes the boat more expensive.
The problem here is that Wauquiez or Amel are brands that have an image as bluewater boats, boats that are supposed to have a better seaworthiness than main mass production boats, with a better safety stability and a better AVS, yachts safer to sail in bad weather.
The problem is that the sailors that will buy those boats for those reasons are being mislead.
That is why I think it is important to create a new RCD class with higher requirements in what regards stability and also higher requirements in several other items, namely waterproof bullheads at the bow and transom (particularly one that separates the rudder area from the rest of the boat).
Above a significant price tag, pleasure boats are no longer boats, but just luxury items.
ReplyDeleteHow many luxury sport cars have even gone on a race track, driven by their owners ? How many luxury 4 wd have even seen mud ?
While they are new, most luxury sailboats will, in the best case, cross Atlantic in a kind of ARC rally, with the help of a professional crew, and go back on the deck of a yacht transport.
I don't understand your comment. It is the same as saying that expensive houses are not houses anymore, even if people live in them, or expensive cars are not cars anymore, even if they are driven everyday.
DeleteCars, even sportive cars are not designed for the race tracks but for being driven on roads. Luxury 4wd are not designed for extensive off-road use. The ones that are are almost as expensive as those (if they have the same power).
The use as nothing to do with a yacht being expensive or not, even if the quality generally has.
Paulo,
ReplyDeleteMuito boa a reportagem e os comentários. Parabéns!
Sem quere ser inconveniente, poderia explicar melhor do que se trata o AVS e a sua importância?
Entendo a relação lastro, área velica e não entendi bem o cálculo do AVS em termos leigos.
Abraços
Alexandre, obrigado pelos comentários elogiosos.
DeleteO cálculo do AVS e da curva de estabilidade é complicado e os desenhadores têm de o fazer para certificar o barco numa das classes possíveis. É um dos elementos que é requerido. A maioria das marcas não torna pública a curva de estabilidade e o AVS, mas não é o caso da HR e podes encontrar no seu site, para cada barco, a respectiva curva de estabilidade e o AVS (o ângulo a partir do qual o barco se vira).
Para mais informação sobre o assunto, a importância do AVS, da estabilidade de segurança e da relação da mesma com o AVS, há vários artigos no blog:
http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/03/stability-1-misleading-information.html
http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/05/please-rcd-certification-for-bluewater.html
http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/04/rcd-increases-minimum-sailboat.html
http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/03/stability-1-misleading-boats-hanse-345.html
http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/class-mini-580-inexpensive-boat-to.html
Obrigado pela resposta!
DeleteHi Paulo, Thanks for this very interesting comparison... With regards to the stability of the HR50, did you take into account they propose it with a carbon mast/boom... Did you consider this in your reasoning? Would it make a considerable difference?
ReplyDeleteHi Beppe,
ReplyDeleteIt will make a difference but not a considerable one. Anyway the B/D on the 50, the design of the keel and the draft are similares to the ones of the 57 and 64 and both have better stability curves (and being bigger sailboats it shouldn't be like that).
I don't believe that the being comparatively more beamy has such a big effect on the final stability and AVS (it will have on the negative stability) so maybe there is something odd about that stability curve.
Thinking better, the fact that the 50 is comparatively beamier than the 57 (or 64) and has a large tankage contributes for a worse security stability curve and AVS.
DeleteThe beamier boat will enter less in the water and that contributes for a higher center of gravity on the diesel and water tanks and that will have a negative effect on the AVS and safety stability.
We can see that on the 57 the AVS is better with full tanks while on the 50 it is about the same.
https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/fileadmin/user_upload/1370-GZ-Curve.jpg
https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/fileadmin/user_upload/HR50stabilitycurve.jpg
Hi Paulo,
ReplyDeleteA very informative blog. Presumably when the stability and AVS of a boat is important in very heavy weather one would have most of the sails reefed. The HR 50 with its in mast furling would have the weight of the main high above the deck. I would have thought this would significantly reduce the AVS compared to having it on the boom.
You are correct. With the sails reefed on a furling mast the AVS will be the same as if you have all sail out.
DeleteI am sure they offer also in boom furling (considerably more expensive) and that has the advantage of having less weight up when the sails are reefed .(increasing the AVS) and the possibility of bring the sail down in the eventuality of jamming, a thing that is very dificult to do (almost impossible with bad weather) on a furling mast.
Olá Paulo,
ReplyDeleteParabéns pelo(s) artigo(s).
Como e onde vc. encaixaria em termos de qualidade os barcos da Oyster nesse coquetel de HR, Amel e outros prestigiosos blue water silboats?
É dificil de dizer. Como sabe há uns anos um acidente com a perda de uma quilha de um iate deixou a reputação bem em baixo, mas devo dizer que recuperaram bem a confiança dos clientes.
ReplyDeleteDe qualquer forma a Oyster especializou-se em Iates de grandes dimensões e só recentemente voltou a produzir alguns barcos mais "pequenos", sendo que o mais pequeno é um 50 pés.
Não gosto muito dos barcos, nem da denominação de bluewater sailboats mas diria que são melhores do que os Amel, pelo menos no que se refere à estabilidade.
Diria que no que se refere à qualidade a Contest continua a estar no topo embora os desenhos pudessem ser ligeiramente mais modernos.