smackdaddy

I'm being a bit bombastic on this point to be sure - but I've just never quite figured out what advantage knobs and buttons on a traditional chartplotter give a skipper in these very rare and ill-defined desperate situations that are usually presented. Again, your choices are yours KIS - I have no qualms with that. But I can also personally attest that the iPad mounted at the helm worked perfectly in various sketchy conditions for us. For example, I entered the St. Andrews Bay inlet at Panama City for the first time ever - at about 0200 - after sailing across offshore from Pensacola. We'd been hit by a couple of gale-force thunderstorms a few hours out of Pensacola - and also had an AP issue - which delayed us a few hours. Though the seas were reasonable, I was definitely nervous about entering as I had no idea about the place and there's not a lot of room for error. But our Navionics charts in iNavX were perfectly visible in night-view mode on the iPad, and were absolutely spot on, as confirmed by the boys on deck spotlighting each marker as we came in. We headed all the way up to that northern anchorage shown off Redfish Point and anchored in about 10' of water as shown. No problems at all. Note: You can see my review for that anchorage in WWG here: https://www.waterwayguide.com/reviews/2-796/redfish-point My point is, if set up correctly, the iPad is also "a weather proof day and night readable reliable nav display I can look at and steer at the same time". I trust mine because I've put it through its paces in all kinds of conditions over several years. It's still going strong.

I cover most of this in my video in the other thread. i can't speak to your preferences or how you use your gear...but... Our iPad plotter was fixed at the helm, readable day and night, could take a lot of water, and could operate by saltwater wet hands. And power is not an issue. In fact you have much more power efficiency and redundancy with the iPad than you could ever have with a traditional plotter (ergo - it's much safer when the fan is truly brown). Also I never had issues with updates while in use (you check for those and take care of it before you leave). Gloves are a problem, yes - though I think they make touch-compatible gloves these days. We sail in warmer climes so typically don't need them. But even so, when it does get cold, it's not that big a deal to remove a glove and make an adjustment. And if your gloves are full-on-arctic, you're going to have trouble with buttons and knobs anyway. So not a convincing argument. Not picking on you KIS - but what cracks me up about these kinds of arguments (which I've heard a million times) is that it makes it sound like the thing to do when everything is going to hell around you is put your head down into the chartplotter and pan and zoom and switch displays for 45 minutes. I usually have all that pretty well set up already, so I just focus on controlling the boat. I guess that's old school these days. Our AP and instruments were available through iNavX on our iPad. You just need an iMux to push the NMEA data via wifi and it's all right there. It's pretty damn cool. While I definitely respect your decades-earned experience thin - the technology available today is invaluable to being able to get out on the water and competently get a boat pretty much anywhere you want to go - in all kinds of conditions - and get to that point much more quickly and safely than ever before. If the goal is to sail instead of sit in a classroom and learn trig - then technology is the way to do that. While the "old ways" are good to learn as you go - as a back-up - they are no longer the best way to go by any means. So the truth is - the "minimums" have changed.

Hi Bob! We're doing really well. Oldest in college now and youngest just started high-school. They are really good guys - they make me proud. I'll head over to your FBFC. Merry Christmas to you too my friend.

Zonks has it right - with the miles to prove it. I've done a crap-ton of research and testing of this stuff. Tablet-based chartplotter - with VHF/AIS combo, SeaTalk boat instrumentation, all run through an iMux (or similar) to bring everything into your chart app...with something like the First Watch radar for the cherry on top. It's about the best solution you could possibly have - from a cost, capability, redundancy, and power consumption standpoint. Hard to go wrong. I'll never buy another chartplotter. Period.

^^^Yep.

Is he even doing sailing stuff anymore. His website looks WAY old and his social stuff is pretty old. Hope he's doing well.

They are freakin' beautiful boats, no question - but I wouldn't touch one. The "hold their value" thing (read hefty paying 6-figures for 30-40 year old boats) just doesn't make sense unless you want to be a collector type and deal with the typical can of worms issues you have on these old boats. Your budget better pretty damn hefty. No thanks.

Incredible! Thanks for sharing! However, I hate it now because there is no way the old dude heard the question about survivors from the rescuers. He was under the freakin' water. Just outrageous. I feel it is now my duty to slag this film all over the interwebs. (I kid).

I did. And I stand by what I just wrote. And the statistics back it up.

And right on cue it's now down to comparing "offshore wieners"? Typical. Beneteau? Pffft. I've done plenty of offshore work in a freakin' Hunter! Talk about taking your life into your own hands! And it was just as good as, if not better than the Pearson 365, Pacific Seacraft 37, etc. that I also did many offshore miles on (those were much thicker by the way and still creaked like hell in big seas). My time on a Beneteau was, sadly, constrained to Corpus Christi Bay - but I would have happily taken it past the jetties had it been my own. Great boat. I've yet to cross any oceans. But that's coming. I'll likely buy a new cat in the med then eventually do the hop and see where we go from there. Now you want to talk about light construction? You'd be freakin' petrified.

Okay - now we're getting to the nut of the issue here. I actually think Dash may be right to some degree. Not about rocks - hitting rocks is still stupid. But about the "exposure to the open ocean" bit. ~95%+ of the sailing market sticks to relatively sheltered water with relatively little sailing. Therefore, this is the heart of the market. However, where he and others are just flat wrong is their insistence that these boats are not fit for the open ocean. That's just ridiculous. As has been attested to by the stats from all the rallies and races I pointed out above - these chuckleheads are just eyerollingly wrong. These boats have shown to be very worthy offshore in the right hands (i.e. - those less experienced sailors who don't hit rocks all the time). So, how can these mass-market production boats be built in the smartest possible way to give the 95% market what they need for their inland lives - and still be CE Cat A rated for offshore work - for the best possible pricing that the market will bear? Simple. Compromise. And here is that nut - I do actually think, for obvious reasons, that that compromise lies primarily in the offshore side of things, and specifically within the "cycle limits" I mentioned above. (As an aside, I appreciate the fact that now that I've already laid out that theory above Dash has also put on his engineer hat and is parroting the same. That's good.) I honestly have no doubt that these boats - when new - will stand up to exactly what they are rated for under CE Cat A... No doubt at all. The real question is - for how long and/or how many times? Back to the cycle limits. The biggest disconnect in these discussions is that all these old dudes are used to boats that last for 60 years. Their perception is completely driven by the used boat market. And that's fine to some degree. But the 60-year run is just not the case anymore...at least not in the same way. Of course, if people are honest, everyone knows that taking a Swan or Oyster or Hinckley around the world will definitely see stuff start wearing out and breaking. No question. But we are now in the age where boats are not built for the 60 year cycle. That's seems very clear. But why is that a bad thing? For example, all the whining about brass seacocks on Benes which need to be replaced 5 years post-purchase. What's the big deal? If you know about that you deal with it. It's just maintenance. And if you don't like it, you tell them you want something different when you buy the boat and just pay more at purchase. Easy-peasy. The bottom line is that I don't think there is a problem with a shorter shelf-life on boats. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective virtually every way you look it. BUT - it would be nice to know what that projected cycle life is for this modern era of boats - especially for conditions like are listed in the Cat A rating. For example, does that rating decrease with X years and/or X number of times in those Cat A conditions? My gut is probably so - and common sense would lead you to that conclusion. But I have no idea. Contrary to Dash's whining - I actually did point out some weaknesses in Bene's approach with things like the rudder assemblies (his ill-fated 43 being one of those models). Seems like those problems started turning up after 5-7 years. But it also pointed to just a bad design/build decision for that component as it was a relatively isolated problem that was pretty easily addressed - and the rest of these boats are still holding up just fine - despite bulkheads apparently flying all over the saloon. So even a decade or two on, I don't think we really yet know the limits of this lighter/thinner approach to yacht building. But I have no doubt that the test is offshore...where these boats belong...at least for a while. And that's precisely why the chuckleheads should pay attention to these rallies and races. That's where your answers will come from. Secondhand hearsay from the yacht club and the misunderstanding of structural and material design ain't gonna cut it. If you're gonna make pronouncements - you better be able to back it up with more than that.

Here is the assembly that Beneteau recommended adding to the mid-late 2000's models - O40/043 (and Cyclades I think). Those had the post/tube/quadrant assembly atop a partition/cabinet that - in defense of BS and Dash - actually DID have too much flex...

I don't know if you're a BS fanboy or not. But your arguments are very much in line with his. For example, why do you think flex itself is bad in a sailboat? Do you not see airplane wings bouncing all over the place when in flight? Do you think the plane is "weak" or "underbuilt" - or that you want to be on a different vehicle in that rougher weather? I'm an ex-architect...have you ever stood in a high-rise in strong wind? What does the building do? Is that "weak" or "underbuilt"? Again, BS lives in the world of "no flex". His whole world is about "strong". Yet his world is actually weaker in many ways. He just doesn't understand that. Your "pick two" analogy, though an argument BS always made - also doesn't hold up in the real world just on principle. And when we're talking sailing yachts - "cheap" isn't really a valid concept anyway. Not even BS yachts are "cheap". In fact they exact a HUGE cost on their builder/owners compared to virtually any relatively modern used glass boat out there. So, enough about BS. But you should re-think your arguments if you don't want to sound like him. With your concern about flex - and your running into yet more rocks - I can understand your concern about sailing these newer boats. But judging by the stats I really think your fears are unfounded - as long as you can stay off the rocks. The only thing you bring up that interests me is your statement that "the glass structure around the rudder quadrant started to disintegrate". I mentioned this same problem above with the Blue Pearl, etc. If we're talking about the same thing, this was a valid issue as indicated by Beneteau's directive to add bracing to that cabinet/tube structure. Does anyone know how widespread a problem this was (years of boats/models)?

I have huge respect for WHL. He's a solid dude. But reading through that story I don't think we should judge Bene 393's by that particular experience. A complete re-rig of the boat, upsizing virtually everything (which will obviously increase generated forces against the underlying stock hull structure - "At that time, apart from many weaknesses in the original fitting out which we fixed, we did not have any indication that the hull, stringers and bulkheads were suspect."), adding a baby stay (I assume as I've not seen a stock Bene 393 with one of these so unsure about the anchoring method used here), flying chutes, 3 full days of 30-40 knots on the nose racing hard by the sound of it, etc. My point is this is by definition not using the boat as designed if we're being honest here. I don't think anyone around here would deem a 393 a racing boat built to be pushed to the limit without damage. So comparing this to any standard Beneteau 393 cruising boat is a serious stretch as far as I'm concerned. As I said, huge respect to WHL - but in this particular case, I don't agree with the expectations, at least the ones he had at that time 10 years ago.

So none of them came back*? (*I didn't see Maui in any of the hailing ports.)