New Sailboats

[double u]

a few thoughts that are maybe good to keep in mind:
the 80-20 rule
what is quality, that one cannot afford, good for?
NO manufacturer is faultless! (remember the Oyster-keel dropping off? saw a Swan 65 with severe osmosis,...)
(and yes: those closed gridpans scare me too...but then: there is always something, that scares me)

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by double u

a few thoughts that are maybe good to keep in mind:
the 80-20 rule
what is quality, that one cannot afford, good for?
NO manufacturer is faultless! (remember the Oyster-keel dropping off? saw a Swan 65 with severe osmosis,...)
(and yes: those closed gridpans scare me too...but then: there is always something, that scares me)

If you read up properly and did your homework regarding the Oyster 88, you'd discover it was a "one-of" stretched 82 and not one of their current or past designs. The yard accepted full responsibilty for the accident and is making sure it can't happen again, which included a complete recall of all the 82.5 Oysters. I've yet to see a Swan of any vintage that wasn't a piece of high performance art. Very strong and rugged boats. I watched a 90ft Swan last summer, drag anchor outside Portisco in 50 knot winds gusts and end up sideways on the rocks. When the wind died down, a small tug pulled it off the rocks and the only damage it sustained was a small scratch on the gelcoat that the crew was busy rubbing out.

Try that with some other designs and you'd probably rub right through the thin gelcoat if the boat hadn't completely broken up on the rocks.

[mako]

Originally Posted by Freshman

... it is a question of my acceptance to mass production or spending 3 times more money for similar in size, boat from shipyard.

It is always good to remember that one day you will have to sell your boat and even it is build very well it was built in shipyard nobody knows... Easier you will sell your boat if is well known.

This argument is repeated often and I believe it is a big fallacy. First of all, ALL boats are hard to sell unless you dump the price. Secondly, which one will you lose more money on: the $400k boat from an unknown shipyard that sells for 50% of its purchase price; or, the $1 million boat from the #1 guy that sells for 50%-70% of its purchase price?

Ask yourself if your desire is to own a "yacht" or to own a "boat."

[double u]

Kenomac, of course I forgot rule no.1: usually you get what you pay for (more or less9

[double u]

btw: "usually..."
just heard (from the horses mouth, so no hearsay):
a central european manufacturer of "quality boats" (aspiring to HR-sort of quality-perception & prices) equips his boats with brass seacocks as standard...
this would be an easily rectified shortcut, but what about the others...invisible & irreversible?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by double u

btw: "usually..."
just heard (from the horses mouth, so no hearsay):
a central european manufacturer of "quality boats" (aspiring to HR-sort of quality-perception & prices) equips his boats with brass seacocks as standard...
this would be an easily rectified shortcut, but what about the others...invisible & irreversible?

Too much to go into on one post, but even Oyster got bit by DRZ brass through hulls way back. There were three or four years where nearly all the boats coming out of Europe were being fitted with DRZ along with warnings to change the fittings after 4 years or so. How do I know this... our boat was one of them. It effected the Oysters from around 2000-2002, but all that I know have changed out their through hulls to top quality Naval bronze which have been fitted as standard since around 2003. Prior to 2000 they were fitted with naval bronze. I wasn't happy when what I thought was a naval bronze elbow fitting broke off in my hand one day, so everything was changed three years ago.

I'd highly recommend everyone, EVERYONE regardless of brand, check to see what was installed when their boats were new, it's highly likely it was DRZ brass if the boat was built after around 1998 or so.

When the shortcomings of the product were noticed, some companies like Oyster switched back to tried and true naval bronze, but other companies like Benteau did not. So now it's up to owners to check & change if necessary. At the time, I don't think DRZ was thought to be a cheap replacement or shortcut. Just an industrywide mistake.

[double u]

...there is literature on the subject after all...& if a manufacturer thinks brass is ok....(& if all of them think brass is ok - this is just damning for them all!!!)
(the guys I was talking about KNOW though, that they have chosen inferior stuff, they just do it anyway, out of cost reasons...)

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by double u

...there is literature on the subject after all...& if a manufacturer thinks brass is ok....(& if all of them think brass is ok - this is just damning for them all!!!)
(the guys I was talking about KNOW though, that they have chosen inferior stuff, they just do it anyway, out of cost reasons...)

Which manufacturer? It's difficult to believe anyone would jeopardize safely just to save $20-$30 or so per fitting, and most boats only have twenty or so.

I had the name wrong earlier, it's DZR Brass.

Brass fittings are even worse than DZR brass.

[double u]

anybody reading between the lines must know whom I'm talking about...(confidentiality prevents me from naming them) in more than one asepct they strive to emulate HR...
(10 or so years ago one of their products was tested & written up in a central european yachting rag & I distinctly recall "...outer layer isophtalic, remainders orthophtalic resin..."
& "cost consciousness" sometimes takes on strange dimensions:
I wondered why a trim tab manufacturer had chosen to seal the cylinder with o-rings instead of shaftseals; the product manager replied: "...the shaftseals are multiple times more expensive: 9 versus 3 cents..." - & being involve now for 18 years in the "leisure marine industry" I see practically every manufacturer succumbing to such phenomena.
& btw: Oyster only changed a "bad practice" after being caught out!!!

[a64pilot]

Just retired from an aircraft manufacturer who had for a very long time a reputation for quality.
Current owner has been making the big decisions for a couple of years now and will trip all over himself to save $50 on a Million dollar aircraft. That is about the number he has saved from switching from the paint I chose a few years ago to current paint. I found out the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, Air Force one and all Gulfstream jets all used the same paint, it wasn't a hard decision on which paint to use.
People are taking notice, the quality of the aircraft is crap now and the reputation is beginning to suffer. Sales have begun to suffer and of course so have profits, so what do you think happens? Start looking for more corners to cut and shortcuts to take of course.

[JonCharles66]

Great input from everyone. @a64pilot makes an important point. Save $50, product fails, people notice, people TALK on social media about the crap product, and you lose $10 million. It is amazing anyone can be so foolish. With social media, you cannot cut corners because everyone will know about it.....or in the alternative, everyone cuts corners, everyone talks about the problems on social media, and we are all left with poor choices because everything is crap.