On 22 Sep 2004 23:09:56 -0700, (wendy) wrote:

This sounds like the ravings of an
incurable romantic I know, but if, at the end of the day, this
obsession with craft that ghost along on the wind isn't a romantic
one, then what is it?

Not really. I love the Shearwater 45's lines, but there are better
boats. If I'm going to spend $400,000, that is. Why, I could buy a
Saga 43 or 48...probably an excellent sailing machine, but if I wanted
a shuttlecraft I would've joined Starfleet, right? G

At the end of the day, you've got to love the boat you are going to
live aboard. That means (to a point), the "look" has to appeal on some
level. There are a LOT of "pretty" boats out there today, but not so
many that will increase your odds of living out a bad blow. If all
else is equal, why not go for the prettier boat?

Now, if J-Boats did proper cruisers...aaahh...that would be great!

R.

wendy wrote:
This sounds like the ravings of an
incurable romantic I know, but if, at the end of the day, this
obsession with craft that ghost along on the wind isn't a romantic
one, then what is it?


rhys wrote:
Not really. I love the Shearwater 45's lines, but there are better
boats. If I'm going to spend $400,000, that is.

Exactly.

.... Why, I could buy a
Saga 43 or 48...probably an excellent sailing machine, but if I wanted
a shuttlecraft I would've joined Starfleet, right? G

For the money, I'm not tempted by one of those. You could get an Able or
Morris or Baltic or Swan etc etc.


At the end of the day, you've got to love the boat you are going to
live aboard. That means (to a point), the "look" has to appeal on some
level. There are a LOT of "pretty" boats out there today, but not so
many that will increase your odds of living out a bad blow. If all
else is equal, why not go for the prettier boat?

Now, if J-Boats did proper cruisers...aaahh...that would be great!

What's wrong with the J-32, the J-35C, the J-37, or (since you're
talking about spending the money) the J-42? To my eye, they're not
"beautiful" but they are certainly good looking and good sailing boats;
plenty habitable enough (and also seaworthy by all accounts) to be a
"proper cruiser."

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:03 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's wrong with the J-32, the J-35C, the J-37, or (since you're
talking about spending the money) the J-42? To my eye, they're not
"beautiful" but they are certainly good looking and good sailing boats;
plenty habitable enough (and also seaworthy by all accounts) to be a
"proper cruiser."

===================================

For offshore cruising, I'd pick the J-44. It's fast, roomy and solid,
not bad looking either to my eye. Perhaps a bit "drafty" for some
venues however.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:03 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's wrong with the J-32, the J-35C, the J-37, or (since you're
talking about spending the money) the J-42? To my eye, they're not
"beautiful" but they are certainly good looking and good sailing boats;
plenty habitable enough (and also seaworthy by all accounts) to be a
"proper cruiser."

Yes, yes, and yes...but I am enough of a belt and suspenders
traditionalist to wish there was some sort of steel cutter- ketch with
a skeg rudder that had some of the other attributes--like fine
build--I see in the J-boats.

I attend the boat shows, and I am very attracted to J-Boats because
they hit most of my personal quality benchmarks regarding systems
layout, handholds, backing plates, access to wiring and engine and so
on. But they can't carry a lot of tankage and they are skewed a little
too slightly to the "performance" side of cruiser.

Which makes them great to sail...I've been on J-24s and J-29s in big
air, and it's a hell of a sleigh ride, but I think I would have to
look at (in a "money is no object" world) the J-160 to get into a
comfort zone for world cruising that I could find in a smaller,
heavier and no doubt pokier...but more appropriate for liveaboards
with a kid...cruiser.

They are very nice boats. So are Swans and Morrises, but those are too
deluxe for my taste. I actually LIKE the idea of the racing J-boats,
where you can power wash the all-plastic interior and then pump it out
and run a heat fan to dry it out. Ah, simplicity! Most cruisers look
like '70s rec rooms below...wood is lovely but is heavy and more work.

R.

What's wrong with the J-32, the J-35C, the J-37, or (since you're
talking about spending the money) the J-42?.....

Wayne.B wrote:
For offshore cruising, I'd pick the J-44. It's fast, roomy and solid,
not bad looking either to my eye. Perhaps a bit "drafty" for some
venues however.

Yeah, but that was a lot more of a racer... solely a racer, from the
point of view of most
The ones I listed were designed and built as cruisers.


rhys wrote:
Yes, yes, and yes...but I am enough of a belt and suspenders
traditionalist to wish there was some sort of steel cutter- ketch with
a skeg rudder that had some of the other attributes--like fine
build--I see in the J-boats.

!Steel!!!! YYuuuukkkkkk!!!!! (backs away brandishing crucifix)
You couldn't *give* me a steel boat. I was in the Navy.

As you note, a properly built fiberglass (or cold-molded wood) boat can
be *plenty* strong.



I attend the boat shows, and I am very attracted to J-Boats because
they hit most of my personal quality benchmarks regarding systems
layout, handholds, backing plates, access to wiring and engine and so
on. But they can't carry a lot of tankage and they are skewed a little
too slightly to the "performance" side of cruiser.

Tankage can be improved. And the better sail performance, higher ballast
ratio, better sail handling systems, etc etc, can all be a huge benefit
to the sailing cruiser.


Which makes them great to sail...I've been on J-24s and J-29s in big
air, and it's a hell of a sleigh ride, but I think I would have to
look at (in a "money is no object" world) the J-160 to get into a
comfort zone for world cruising that I could find in a smaller,
heavier and no doubt pokier...but more appropriate for liveaboards
with a kid...cruiser.

Pokier is relative. A J-32 will still sail rings around most "cruising"
boats of her accomodation, and so would most of the others.

I grew up racing small tippy one-design dinghies. A J-29 ain't half the
kick that 470 is... no keel boat can approach the horsepower/weight
ratio & responsiveness of a thoroughbred racing dinghy. But I digress....

The performance under sail would be very welcome to cruisers who make
transits under sail, especially the windward performance. It will also
steer better under all conditions. Here's an even more heretical
opinion, based on my own observations- these boats that are designed for
better performance *maintain* their edge in performance (if properly
sailed) well into upper wind & weather conditions. Sure they have to
reef sooner, but the easier to work rigs produce more drive for less
heel & more efficient foils keep their grip better. I suppose if you are
battened down & riding to a sea anchor in the ultimate survival gale, a
crab-crusher is going to be a smoother ride... but "smooth" is a small
relative improvement.


They are very nice boats. So are Swans and Morrises, but those are too
deluxe for my taste. I actually LIKE the idea of the racing J-boats,
where you can power wash the all-plastic interior and then pump it out
and run a heat fan to dry it out. Ah, simplicity! Most cruisers look
like '70s rec rooms below...wood is lovely but is heavy and more work.

Yeah, hand-oiled veneer & plush fabric interiors aren't the most
practical thing for the hurly-burly tough cruising life.

BTW some years ago my wife and I were at one of the big boat shows and
stepped onto a Corel 45 (very fancy ggrand Prix racing boat). We
marveled at the deck layout, checked out the heft (or lack thereof) of
the carbon fiber boom & spinnaker pole. Then went down below, looked at
each other, and said simultaneously "Wow, you could put a full cruising
interior *and* a skating rink in here!" Given the current market
conditions, I think we'll see a lot of racing boat conversions over the
next few years.

But it's an interesting question: "If you had a cool $1/4 mil to spend
on a sailboat, what would you get?"

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:15:47 -0400, DSK wrote:



!Steel!!!! YYuuuukkkkkk!!!!! (backs away brandishing crucifix)
You couldn't *give* me a steel boat. I was in the Navy.

Yeah, but wasn't it spec'd by the same minds that ordered a $1,900
toilet seat and a $300 hammer? G What can I say...steel DONE
PROPERLY (bulletproof coatings and ease of interior hull access) and
MAINTAINED SENSIBLY (don't drop pennies down the bilge...keep a pot of
touch up paint for deck and topside chips) can last decades and
provide a safe and easy ride in the 40-50 foot range. Also,
understanding the difference between various steel types (mild, 316,
and Corten) can avoid a lot of grief.

I will grant you this about steel...if you don't understand the
difference between surface and deep corrosion, or if you think spray
foam is a great idea, you can buy a world of grief. The idea is to
understand the limits of the material and to build to that. Some steel
homebuilts are as good or better in that sense than some Euro
production boats I've seen, because the welds and coatings are
absolutely top notch.

The likely scenario for me and family world-cruising is that I find a
80% finished Roberts project boat, finish the interior to my own
design, and go with that. But if the right F/G boat comes along, that
would be fine, too. I just like steel and the fact you can get it
repaired anywhere. Also, the proportion of steel boats in higher
latitudes and in Europe should tell you something about actual vs.
prejudical attitudes toward materials.


As you note, a properly built fiberglass (or cold-molded wood) boat can
be *plenty* strong.

Sure it can. In fact, the cold-molded wood might be the best
compromise of all, but it's definitely a minority viewpoint these
days.



Tankage can be improved. And the better sail performance, higher ballast
ratio, better sail handling systems, etc etc, can all be a huge benefit
to the sailing cruiser.

You might find the latest Practical Sailor (arrived today) review of
the J/133 interesting. It kinda sums up what I like more...and like a
little less...about J-Boat cruisers as passagemakers.



Pokier is relative. A J-32 will still sail rings around most "cruising"
boats of her accomodation, and so would most of the others.

My 1973 Viking 33 (think a greyhound version of a C&C 33) is mighty
fast if quite outdated at this point. I can outsail boats up to 38-40
feet easily in big air due to a huge J measurement and my narrow
beam/high ballast ratio. So in fact I already own a vaguely J-Boat-ish
vessel in terms of performance...more racer than cruiser...and my
stance is that while with certain hatch and rigging improvements my
boat could tackle the Atlantic, I don't think the crew would enjoy the
experience! The boat likes 30 knots plus in square-waved Lake Ontario,
but the motion is pretty quick and it can be a damp ride.


The performance under sail would be very welcome to cruisers who make
transits under sail, especially the windward performance. It will also
steer better under all conditions. Here's an even more heretical
opinion, based on my own observations- these boats that are designed for
better performance *maintain* their edge in performance (if properly
sailed) well into upper wind & weather conditions. Sure they have to
reef sooner, but the easier to work rigs produce more drive for less
heel & more efficient foils keep their grip better. I suppose if you are
battened down & riding to a sea anchor in the ultimate survival gale, a
crab-crusher is going to be a smoother ride... but "smooth" is a small
relative improvement.

Well, I haven't ruled J-Boats out G...I suppose a lottery win would
allow me to rethink my "possibles" list. I think I would consider
something J-Boat-like in performance with a few cruiser touches, like
skeg rudder, low, baffled tankage, removable inner forestay, and so
on. I liked the fact that this new J/133 has ONE head standard and you
can convert an aft berth into a workshop or storage. Two heads are
silly to me...twice the plumbing to break. But now I digress...


Yeah, hand-oiled veneer & plush fabric interiors aren't the most
practical thing for the hurly-burly tough cruising life.

Maybe that's why I like steel: liveaboard, multi-year cruising
requires in my mind some of the same thinking that goes into
workboats, if not the actual "look", mind you. Everyone admires the
plush upholstery...I'm looking for the lashing points for the lee
cloths. G Most folk like the marble inlay in the head...I look for
the shower sump and the runs to the battery G.

BTW some years ago my wife and I were at one of the big boat shows and
stepped onto a Corel 45 (very fancy ggrand Prix racing boat). We
marveled at the deck layout, checked out the heft (or lack thereof) of
the carbon fiber boom & spinnaker pole. Then went down below, looked at
each other, and said simultaneously "Wow, you could put a full cruising
interior *and* a skating rink in here!" Given the current market
conditions, I think we'll see a lot of racing boat conversions over the
next few years.

I think that's very dodgy, because if you put weight in a race boat,
you just get a slow race boat rather quickly. The performance is a
function of keeping weight in place, hull design, rig and various
closely calculated stresses...a comfy ride isn't usually a factor.
Even club racers on production boats know that...which is why I race
on a stripped out Newport 27 another guy owns and I keep my ex-racer
as a fast cruiser (about 1,000 lbs. over race weight but well-placed
to keep it fast).

But it's an interesting question: "If you had a cool $1/4 mil to spend
on a sailboat, what would you get?"

For that cash, you should get the IDEAL 42-45 footer custom-built or
semi-custom built on the interior. As a future world cruiser, I can
live with heavier, less space-age materials, but I want my systems and
stowage simple, accessible and as robust as is reasonable for cost and
weight. The cherry veneer is irrelevant in a Force 10 blow.

R.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:27:26 -0400, rhys wrote:

Two heads are
silly to me...twice the plumbing to break. But now I digress...

==========================================

Have you ever been cruising on a one-head-boat that has gone FUBAR?

Next to a collision, dismasting or massive hull leak, nothing else
will ruin your day quite as much.

Wayne.B wrote:

Have you ever been cruising on a one-head-boat that has gone FUBAR?

Next to a collision, dismasting or massive hull leak, nothing else
will ruin your day quite as much.

Only if you're too shy to hang wee willie over the aft rail ;-)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:19:49 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:27:26 -0400, rhys wrote:

Two heads are
silly to me...twice the plumbing to break. But now I digress...

==========================================

Have you ever been cruising on a one-head-boat that has gone FUBAR?

Yes, my own, when the cheap-ass PO's crappily maintained Brydon head
went splork.

Next to a collision, dismasting or massive hull leak, nothing else
will ruin your day quite as much.

Not as long as I have a bucket. Oh, and on inland waters, a lid.

R.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:27:26 -0400, rhys wrote:


But it's an interesting question: "If you had a cool $1/4 mil to spend
on a sailboat, what would you get?"

For that cash, you should get the IDEAL 42-45 footer custom-built or
semi-custom built on the interior. As a future world cruiser, I can
live with heavier, less space-age materials, but I want my systems and
stowage simple, accessible and as robust as is reasonable for cost and
weight. The cherry veneer is irrelevant in a Force 10 blow.

I think if you check prices you will find that "a cool $1/4 mil"
might get you a well equipped production boat (B, C, H) in the 42 -45
ft. range. If you want a boat other than from the big three you'll be
starting at 300K for about a 38 footer. Don't even look at a Morris!
A fifteen year old 36 ft. used one goes for a bit under 200K and new
ones in the 40 to 45 ft. range close to 1 mil. It's quite an eye
opener for those of us that last bought a new boat 15 years ago.


Rick Itenson
Breathless
Toronto