Helped a friend take his boat, a Columbia 8.7, around to a boatyard
for some work this morning. This place is in a narrow, shallow creek
and not well marked, but we didn't have any trouble until we met a
bozo in a trawler coming out the channel. I should have simply stayed
where we needed to go, instead I moved over just a little too far and
we got stuck. On the lee side too.

The trawler driver had zero clue and was quite agitated, his wife on
the stern deck yelled at us as they went by. My lesson- let the other
guy run aground, even if he is coming out from the boatyard putting
new props on!

We did get free after rocking the boat and getting a line to windward
(the shore was about 40' away), and my friend proceeded to his work of
rewiring the harness at his mast step. This required unstepping the
mast & lifting it up about a foot.

Yesterday afternoon we went for a nice sail on another friend's boat,
a Soverel 30. Thunderstorms all around, we got a little wet but didn't
get blasted. Tonight we have some Great Looper cruisers stopping in
for dinner, they are in New Bern as they head north on their Loop
cruise.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Apr 28, 12:15 pm, wrote:
A friend of mine downsized from a Mumm 36 to a Soverel 33. Great light
air boat, and he likes not having to keep together a larger crew of
more highly skilled sailors to race effectively. The Mumm was not a
very forgiving boat, and required a crew of 9. The quality of his
Soverel is a little lacking, but the boat sails very well, and that's
all he cares about.

If your friend thinks that "quality is lacking" in any Soverel built
boat, he needs to get out more. They were all quite well built. The
racing boats like the 33 were built LIGHT... a whole 'nother thing. If
they were built like a Hallberg-Rassy, they'd be slow and nobody would
want one.

My friends boat is one of the "Soverel Senior" boats, like the Soverel
37 ketch... in fact it's hull shape has a noticable family
resemblance. It's a keel centerboard, roomy, relatively fast (we were
going 4.5 close hauled under a reefed main along). Seems very solidly
built but of course much heavier than the later generation Soverel
race boats. Heck, the Soverel 33 only weighs about 25% more than my
Santana 23.

DSK

wrote:
The Soverel 33 was built by 4 different manufacturers,

Nope, wrong again.
The Soverel 33s was built in the same facility by (mostly) the exact
same guys, with Mark Soverel supervising.

It may be that you are confused because the Soverel name was owned by
a couple of different corporate entities? Or it may be that you're
thinking of another boat entirely, like the Hobie 33 or the Olsons.


... You need to get out more! LOL


Don't see how I'd have the time. I'm already getting out plenty.

DSK

It may be that you are confused because the Soverel name was owned by
a couple of different corporate entities? Or it may be that you're
thinking of another boat entirely, like the Hobie 33 or the Olsons.

wrote:
Nope. You are simply in error, Doug.


It's happened before, but I don't think so this time.


Shall I name the companies for you?


Sure.

The first 69 were built by Mark Soverel's father, who owned Soverel
Marine in Florida. It may not have actualy been that many boats, but
the last hull number was 69

After that, a total of 24 were made by two different companies in
California


And their names are.... ??


...and finally 20 more by Tartan

The discrepancy is that there were about 90 known boats, and the
number built in California and Ohio are known. It is thought there is
a gap in the Soverel Marine Hull numbers that would explain it.


And the fact that the molds are still sitting in the back lot at
Soverel's old plant can be explained by....



The different manufacturers used different materials and the boats did
not all weigh the same. In fact, it was a pretty wide spread.

It's very common for fiberglass boats to have widely varying weights,
differing up to 20% in some cases I know of. It even happens in one-
design classes that are supposed to be more rigidly controlled.

For classic hand laid open molded boats, it would be doing pretty well
to get within 10%.

Mark Soverel used to joke about the fact that his boats were built "to
win races, not save lives". I'd say that calling them flimsy, but
fast, is fair and accurate.

And I'd say that to call them that is pretty dumb. How many Catalinas
and Hunters have had major structural failures as a result of normal
sailing? Several that have been widely reported, and several more that
I've seen not reported in boating press. How many Soverels have failed
structurally... and are sailed pretty hard?

Yeah, most of them have been retabbed a couple of times over the
years. Goes with the territory... one reason why I'm not buying a
"Junior" Soverel or an Olson. Some people have rebuilt them using
advanced materials and vacuum bagging them, it'll be interesting to
see if that holds up longer.

DSK

And the fact that the molds are still sitting in the back lot at
Soverel's old plant can be explained by....


wrote:
They aren't unless they recently re-aquired them. In fact, PCX rebuilt
the molds to fix some problems with them out in California.

Well, I've been there and seen them, about 3 years ago.
Of course, it could be that these other builders built new tooling...
kind of unlikely IMHO, but possible...

... The molds
are owned by Tartan or Ericson.


Well, make up your mind.
I think you're confused, Ericson built Olsons for a while.



It's very common for fiberglass boats to have widely varying weights,
differing up to 20% in some cases I know of. It even happens in one-
design classes that are supposed to be more rigidly controlled.

The boats were built differently, Doug, and the weight differences are
rather substantial.

Isn't that what I said?

.... They also used different coring materials, and
some were reinforced with plywood. More evidence that the boats were
not very sturdy as designed and originally built.

Not a bit. Just means that the "new builder" decided to do things
differently, most likely to cut costs when building a boat that has a
good following but was not very profitable.

Plywood is not really a core material. It's a structural element by
itself. It's also rather heavy and not very rigid, plus it wicks water
all thru and rots. But it's cheap.

In other words, to "reinforce" a boat with plywood... especially a
light weight racing boat... is the act of a person who doesn't really
know or care much about the engineering of boats.


.... Tartan did some
pretty major reinforcement to the ones they built.


Or was it Ericson..

The weight ranges from 5200 to 6800 pounds. This IS a one design boat.


Not really. Especially if the weight variation is *that* much. When
was the last Soverel 33 Nationals and how many boats attended?

I've sailed 3 or 4 different Soverel 33s and couple of their other
models... the Soverel Senior 37 ketch is a great boat. I almost
bought a Sov33 year before last... I have heard of the "Tartan models"
but the story according to some Sov33 owners is rather vague and they
seem to like to blame their lack of PHRF success on being hugely
overweight. OTOH two of the guys I sailed with have rebuilt their boat
themselves and know quite a lot about it, and have done very well with
them. There's one that has been extensively rebuilt & rerigged that
races here.

DSK

... The molds
are owned by Tartan or Ericson.

Well, make up your mind.
I think you're confused, Ericson built Olsons for a while.


wrote:
Not confused at all.

You just don't think you're confused.

........ With companies going in and out of business and
reforming as they do, it's not clear exactly which entity owns them at
the present.

See, you really are confused.

... They are not owned by Soverel Marine, which has been out
of business since 1988.

Sure, but the company which bought Soverel Marine didn't disintegrate
the buildings & property, did they? Just a change of corporate
ownership, with the boats actually being built in the same facility
with largely the same workmen (and AFAIK under Mark Soverel's
supervision, at least for the first few iterations).

Happens all the time, in boat building & other businesses.






The boats were built differently, Doug, and the weight differences are
rather substantial.

Isn't that what I said?

Not really


That's funny, I could have sworn I said that weight variations of 20%
weren't really unusual in production keelboats.

Of course, a variation from 5200# to 6800# is a bit more than that,
but if they started throwing in plywood, it could explain a lot.
Especially once it soaks up some water.

Actually I didn't mention (and you apparently don't know) one of the
engineering benefits of plywood, it is relatively soft-failure
material. In other words, it shows obvious warning signs of impending
failure, and breaks a little at a time.



Those were the boats built by Soverel, Doug. Under the supervision of
Mark Soverel. LOL


If they pay him to put in plywood, he puts in plywood.


Mark Soverel designed it as a one design boat, Doug. Talk about
confused!


And that makes it a one-design?
Example- Olin Stephens did NOT design the Lightning as a "one-design,"
he designed as a club racer-daysailer. That it was hugely successful
as a one-design is partly due to it's superiority over anything else
in it's size/price range at that time, and partly due to successful
promotion by the class officers.

In other words, a designer & builder can call a boat "one-design" all
they want to, but unless the class catches on and there is one-design
racing, that doesn't matter.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If you and Mark Soverel call it
a duck and it neither waddles nor swims nor quacks, what is it?

Especially if the weight variation is *that* much. When
was the last Soverel 33 Nationals and how many boats attended?

What does that have to do with anything?


The difference between a one-design class and a duck.


I've sailed 3 or 4 different Soverel 33s and couple of their other
models... the Soverel Senior 37 ketch is a great boat.


The 37 is hardly the same boat as the 33 under discussion. Ford made
refrigerators, as well as cars, trucks and tractors. So?


Ford also owns a lot of other car companies. Is an Opel a Ford just
because of the change in corporate ownership?


I almost
bought a Sov33 year before last...

Almost? I guess it must have seemed deficient in some way. Condition
problems? Couldn't really have been price if you "almost" bought it.
What was wrong with it?


Too much work to get it here, and I really wanted a boat that can be
trailer launched. Other than that, nothing much was wrong with it
other than tired running rigging.


.... OTOH two of the guys I sailed with have rebuilt their boat
themselves and know quite a lot about it, and have done very well with
them. There's one that has been extensively rebuilt & rerigged that
races here.


Yes, I have no doubt that any of them still sailing have had a lot of
work done on them. Sure all boats need maintenance, but "extensive
rebuilt and re-rigged"?

That particular boat is owned by a sailmaker who is an dedicated
tinkerer.

I don't happen to like a boat that needs rebonding & retabbing every
few years, however boats like Pacific Seacraft Danas, even the mighty
Westsail 32, have popped their tabbing loose and you don't seem to be
claiming they are "flimsy."

IOW you don't know WTF you're talking about, just being insulting.

Again.

Are you *sure* you're not related to Bobsprit?

DSK

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If you and Mark Soverel call it
a duck and it neither waddles nor swims nor quacks, what is it?

wrote:
I guess you didn';t realize that Mark Soverel is dead and no longer
quacks very much.


Yes, I did know. It was widely reported in sailing media.... did you
just now Google it up?
Anyway, I apologize to all if my saying the Soverel 33 is not really a
one-design class, just because Mark Soverel said so, is speaking ill
of the dead.

So, do we take this as your tacit admission that the Soverel 33 isn't
really a one-design, what with the lack of a class and the wide
variation in weight etc etc?




IOW you don't know WTF you're talking about, just being insulting.

Again.

Seems as If I've successfully countered almost every one of your
specious claims,

???

On what planet?
Oh, I know, the one where just making stuff up, & not knowing the
difference between Tartan & Ericson, & not knowing anything at all
about boat's structural properties while pontificating about
flimsiness, means that YOU WIN!! Congrats, BB you've done it again!!


... except to keep saying I don't know WTF I'm talking
about

Only said that once.

Anyway, I hope your friend enjoys his Soverel 33, it's a great boat
and isn't flimsy at all. In fact, they are good heavy-air boats too.

DSK

Anyway, I hope your friend enjoys his Soverel 33, it's a great boat
and isn't flimsy at all. In fact, they are good heavy-air boats too.



wrote:
Until of course you put it alongside something like a Quest 33 and take a long
hard look. The Soverel doesn't do so well in that comparison. Similar sized boat
of about the same weight.

And about 10X the cost, and about 20 years newer design, and it's
rated a bit faster anyway.

DSK

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote
this crap:


The first 69 were built by Mark Soverel's father, who owned Soverel
Marine in Florida. It may not have actualy been that many boats, but
the last hull number was 69

Noooo! I raced on a Soverel 33, called, "Moisture Missle," which the
owner said was hull number 69. We won many, many races.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.