|
I think I've Got It
Boat shopping here in the Middle East has proven to be a pleasant
diversion. Beats getting shot at, anyway. As much as I look and research online, there are a lot of boats that are interesting. The venerable Tayana 37 is nice, the Shannons are good choices, and the Caliber 38 is a pretty good buy. And of course there are more, loads more. I have decided to stick with something under 40 feet; everything just gets too complicated in larger boats. And in that category, I keep returning to one boat- the Crealock 37. They are pricey. Real pricey. A mid-80's model is all I am going to be able to buy and still have cash in reserve for the inevitable "stuff that has to be dealt with." The boat is a beautiful craft, and while she is not nearly as roomy as, say, the T-37, she's plenty big for one or two people. I have never had the pleasure of sailing on one, but I understand they are very nicely balanced, easy to singlehand (as singlehanding goes), and they are not terrors around the docks. That the boats are well-made and respected is a plus; if I ever decide to sell I should get a good portion of the purchase price back. But the things are awfully expensive. Wendy |
|
wendy wrote:
Boat shopping here in the Middle East has proven to be a pleasant diversion. Beats getting shot at, anyway. So does almost anything... at least that's what I hear! As much as I look and research online, there are a lot of boats that are interesting. The venerable Tayana 37 is nice, the Shannons are good choices, and the Caliber 38 is a pretty good buy. The Caliber is a very different boat than the Tayana. It's a fin keeler, flatter hull. They are built with bigger tanks and other provisions for long term cruising but I've heard a number of owners reporting problems.... but then no boat is perfect. FWIW I have sailed a Caliber 35 and found it sails better than the numbers suggest it should. I like the handling of such a boat much better than a full keeler, but that's an issue of personal taste. The Shannon and Gozzard boats are similar, full keelers, and usually rather pricey. ... And of course there are more, loads more. I have decided to stick with something under 40 feet; everything just gets too complicated in larger boats. And in that category, I keep returning to one boat- the Crealock 37. They are pricey. Real pricey. A mid-80's model is all I am going to be able to buy and still have cash in reserve for the inevitable "stuff that has to be dealt with." The boat is a beautiful craft, and while she is not nearly as roomy as, say, the T-37, she's plenty big for one or two people. That difference in roominess reflects the design and also to a large extent the structure of the boat. It's relatively narrow and well bulkheaded. ... I have never had the pleasure of sailing on one, but I understand they are very nicely balanced, easy to singlehand (as singlehanding goes), and they are not terrors around the docks. I've sailed the 31. It's one of the nicer sailing of the heavyweights. ... That the boats are well-made and respected is a plus; if I ever decide to sell I should get a good portion of the purchase price back. But the things are awfully expensive. Well, assuming that the current generation doesn't completely destroy the environment, rendering it impossible to sail the oceans; and the younger generation doesn't turn it's back on vigorous out doors pursuits; then yes you should be able to recoup a good price for the boat. And that makes a difference in the overall expense of having her. But you'll find that keeping & outfitting & maintaining a boat can still be expensive. IMHO an long term average of ~8% of it's value per year is a good figure... much more, if you have to hire others to work on her. Why have you zeroed in on the Crealock 37? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
DSK wrote in message ...
Why have you zeroed in on the Crealock 37? Why the Crealock… That's a good question, but my answer might be a bit nebulous. However, I will attempt to answer. Aesthetically, the boat is stunning in appearance. I know that sounds, on the surface, a bit of a silly reason to settle on a boat, and if it was the sole reason for purchasing a particular model, I concede that it would indeed be silly. It is so easy to get caught up in the nuts and bolts of boats- all the technical specifications and ratios, the carbon-this and the vinylester-that, and there is no doubt that these things are of great importance. Only a fool would give them cursory attention. I am sure there are boat owners for whom these details are the very aspect of boat ownership from which they draw the most satisfaction, and there is nothing remotely wrong with that. There is, for me, an indefinable aesthetic to sailing that cannot be spreadsheeted or calculated. The Crealock 37 embodies this aesthetic- again, for me. 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? The boat is just so well designed and manufactured that I KNOW I can't go wrong with one (financial considerations notwithstanding ;-) I am single, and the boat has plenty of room for me- plus she can be easily singlehanded. PSC supports these boats regardless of year of manufacture, and that's a big plus- particularly so as the manufacturer is here in the US. I am a member of the PSC sailnet mailing list and I've heard a lot of good things about support; Bill Crealock himself lends advice on that list from time to time. While I have not sailed one, I have read from many sources how well balanced the boat is, and how well she fares in a seaway. I don't want to sit on the dock, and this boat is made to go to sea. But oh, are they expensive. |
DSK wrote ...
Why have you zeroed in on the Crealock 37? wendy wrote: Why the Crealock… That's a good question, but my answer might be a bit nebulous. However, I will attempt to answer. Aesthetically, the boat is stunning in appearance. I know that sounds, on the surface, a bit of a silly reason to settle on a boat, No, it's a good reason. Mind you, it may lead to some compromises you might grumble under your breath about... just like marrying a woman because she is stunningly beautiful... but if you're happy overall, then I would be the last person to criticise. .... It is so easy to get caught up in the nuts and bolts of boats- all the technical specifications and ratios, the carbon-this and the vinylester-that, and there is no doubt that these things are of great importance. Agreed, but unenthusiastically. You can't simply say "All the technical aspects and details are equally important." A boat designed with this principle in mind would be a total failure. All boats are a compromise. That's why none of them do *everything* well. Choosing the 'right' boat is simply picking your top two or three priorities, finding a boat that fulfills them, and won't make you miserable over the 9,999 other things on the list. The boat is just so well designed and manufactured Hmmm... I don't want to start a flame war, but I find the Pacific Seacrafts... especially the post-buyout ones... uninspiring in build quality. The older ones are solid... and functional. OTOH, stacked up next to say a Morris or an Oyster... well... One very good thing about the PSC Crealocks is that the rig & deck layout is very good, very practical. Considered as a machine, it works well. And a wise man once said, "Utility is beauty." It sounds to me like you have looked at the practical side of things and have some pretty good answers. .... I don't want to sit on the dock, and this boat is made to go to sea. There you have it. But oh, are they expensive. So steal one.... wait, just kidding... but patience is also a virtue. Peace! Doug King |
|
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. |
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:15:47 -0400, DSK wrote:
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. =============================== As long as draft is not an issue, and the interior accomodations are there, offshore racers make darn good cruisers in many cases. Add roller furling, an inner forestay, lazy jacks, at least one electric winch, and you are good to go. If you can race the boat to Bermuda, you can cruise it there also. |
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 |
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 ;-) |
!Steel!!!! YYuuuukkkkkk!!!!! (backs away brandishing crucifix)
You couldn't *give* me a steel boat. I was in the Navy. rhys wrote: Yeah, but wasn't it spec'd by the same minds that ordered a $1,900 toilet seat and a $300 hammer? G You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually, the Navy takes rust prevention very seriously and invests a heck of a lot of time & money on it. And with a great deal of success, but not from an aesthetic standpoint. ... 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 Sure. ... and provide a safe and easy ride in the 40-50 foot range. Sorry, you're dreaming. There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say, less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50 foot seas, especially if they break. The material the boat is made of is less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else. But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and 50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise, in building it out of steel. 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. One of the steel boats I've had experience with was owned by the Great Lakes Naval training Center Sailing Club. It was a 40-ish foot ketch, very heavy, an empty box with no accomodation inside. The empty space was necessary for sail & tool stowage. I don't know how many sails the boat carried but it must have been 30+. We used to entertain ourselves by experimenting with mizzen staysails, of which there were at least a dozen. It also had padeyes welded all over it for tying stuff down, all seemed strong enough to lift the boat from. .... 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. That greatly depends on how it's done. The racer starts out with better hull lines, a higher ballast ratio, stronger structure. You could a significant part of the boat's weight before degrading the stability and performance unless you add it all at bow or stern, very high up, etc etc. The real problem is that such conversions are too likely to be undertaken by people who don't know or don't pay much attention to such details, and may not have chosen the basic boat wisely in the first place. However I've seen a couple of pretty nice ones. 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. ??? I don't think you're to get a custom 40+ footer for that kind of money. Double, maybe. You could always buy the design, contract the hull and do much of the fitting out yourself... not my cup o' tea. ... 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. Agreed. But I like a boat that looks good, and how much time do you spend battling gales anyway? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:49:07 -0400, in message
prodigal1 wrote: 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 ;-) We are about to embark on delivering a vessel of uncertain plumbing. That's one of the reasons "bucket" is on the equipment list. Ryk |
... 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.. well, you _might_ start by knowing what you are talking about. pennies in the bilge are trouble for *aluminum* boats, but not STEEL. (notice the difference in terms. I emphasized them to help you out with your studies.) |
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 21:53:36 -0400, DSK wrote:
Actually, the Navy takes rust prevention very seriously and invests a heck of a lot of time & money on it. And with a great deal of success, but not from an aesthetic standpoint. They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...if the boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and pirates. Besides, all boats look great when underway, and that's where I will enjoy it most. ... and provide a safe and easy ride in the 40-50 foot range. Sorry, you're dreaming. There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say, less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50 foot seas, especially if they break. OK, "safer and easier" as endlessly profiled in "Heavy Weather Sailing" and Marchaj and the like. The material the boat is made of is less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else. I understand, but there are design compromises that can mitigate a lot of discomfot. But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and 50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise, in building it out of steel. Well, Brewer, Moitessier and a lot of European builders and sailors would disagree. I would say sub-38 feet or so, steel is too damn heavy. One of the steel boats I've had experience with was owned by the Great Lakes Naval training Center Sailing Club. It was a 40-ish foot ketch, very heavy, an empty box with no accomodation inside. The empty space was necessary for sail & tool stowage. I don't know how many sails the boat carried but it must have been 30+. We used to entertain ourselves by experimenting with mizzen staysails, of which there were at least a dozen. It also had padeyes welded all over it for tying stuff down, all seemed strong enough to lift the boat from. I would have enjoyed seeing that boat G Mizzen staysails have always seemed like a nice, trade-winds sort of thing: effortlessly effective and beautiful to boot. That greatly depends on how it's done. The racer starts out with better hull lines, a higher ballast ratio, stronger structure. You could a significant part of the boat's weight before degrading the stability and performance unless you add it all at bow or stern, very high up, etc etc. The real problem is that such conversions are too likely to be undertaken by people who don't know or don't pay much attention to such details, and may not have chosen the basic boat wisely in the first place. However I've seen a couple of pretty nice ones. I'm not saying it's by any means impossible, but you need to do a lot of math before you can even make the call. A lot of race boats are far too extreme (and are designed to last really just for the campaign) to be considered candidates for conversion. I don't think you're to get a custom 40+ footer for that kind of money. Double, maybe. You could always buy the design, contract the hull and do much of the fitting out yourself... not my cup o' tea. Maybe mine, as I have some non-standard ideas about stowage and accommodation. ... 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. Agreed. But I like a boat that looks good, and how much time do you spend battling gales anyway? That I don't know, but if I battle one big blow in the five-seven years I would like to be out, I want to make sure it's in a boat that I can keep sailing and won't fail us. We won't be in a hurry or need to impress anyone else, so functional is fine. There's beauty in a well-made, simply appointed boat. Having said that, I have no objection to good looks. R. |
Sorry for the delayed reply, Ive been out of town.
rhys wrote: They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust... Lots & lots of man-hours deovted to chipping & wire-wheeling the tiniest rust spot, and zinc chromate. ... if the boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and pirates. That's my theory with cars, it seems to work OK (although I do not care to live or park in high-crime areas). ... Besides, all boats look great when underway Agreed, but some look greater than others ;) .... There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say, less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50 foot seas, especially if they break. OK, "safer and easier" as endlessly profiled in "Heavy Weather Sailing" and Marchaj and the like. I think it's a great idea to have higher LPOS, great stuctural & watertight integrity, and to have an efficient and easily worked storm canvas. There is no conflict IMHO between these desirable characteristics and a boat that sails fast. OTOH the prime characteristic of a "fast" sailboat is that it has a relatively light footprint. This makes it bouncier, all else being equal. Question- is the likelihood of getting conked in the head by a flying soup can a "seaworthiness" characteristic? .. The material the boat is made of is less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else. I understand, but there are design compromises that can mitigate a lot of discomfot. It seems to me like a wise choice to put priority on issues of strength, controllability, stability, & watertight integrity; and then & only then get into the issue of fast & bouncy versus slow & submarinish (personally, I'd choose fast!). But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and 50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise, in building it out of steel. Well, Brewer, Moitessier and a lot of European builders and sailors would disagree. I would say sub-38 feet or so, steel is too damn heavy. It's a judgement call... I don't much like steel as a material for sailboats, but certainly there have been successful steel boats even smaller than 38' LOA. None of them have been fast, at best you could say they were a good working compromise between speed & other desirable characteristics. OTOH there are many steel boats designed for the homebuilder market that cannot get out of their own way under sail. I'm not saying it's by any means impossible, but you need to do a lot of math before you can even make the call. A lot of race boats are far too extreme (and are designed to last really just for the campaign) to be considered candidates for conversion. True, although I think you're getting sucked too much into the 'racing boats are flimsy' mindset. Racing boats *have* to be built strong to even make it around the course. Breaking up is slow. And they're expensive enough that nobody considers ephemerity as a good selling point. The often pointed to examples of America's Cup boats breaking up are actually (considering the facts)better examples of boats that were field modified outside of the designers sight and had extreme force applied inappropriately. Anybody who does that, cruiser or not, is rolling the dice. The market for big racing keelboats is basically in freefall. Outside of the very few who want impressive daysailers and those eccentrics in the market to convert them into cruisers, there is zero demand for big non-competitive racing sailboats. It's interesting to note that the asking prices for cruising catamarans also seems to be dropping... not in freefall, but big cats coming out of charter fleets are asking 1/2 what they were. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:50:59 -0400, DSK wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply, Ive been out of town. Not a problem...been rethinking my exhaust system, anyway G rhys wrote: They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust... Lots & lots of man-hours deovted to chipping & wire-wheeling the tiniest rust spot, and zinc chromate. I know and respect this fact, but there are steps to minimize this that come during construction and of course fitting out (rubrails and Treadmaster come immediately to mind. I am less concerned with superficial problems (scratches and dings) than the sort of compromising structure corrosion on steel boats that I believe can be...OK, not eliminated...but largely overcome through current coating technologies, eyeballing low areas in the boat, keeping the bilges dry, removable neoprene panels for insulation instead of blown-in foam, , attention to electrolysis and bonding issues, etc. It's not rocket science, just a different maintenance pattern. And I haven't ruled out aluminum...which is more expensive, way more problematic with electric current, and harder to weld properly, but is otherwise a great material for cruisers. snip I think it's a great idea to have higher LPOS, great stuctural & watertight integrity, and to have an efficient and easily worked storm canvas. There is no conflict IMHO between these desirable characteristics and a boat that sails fast. I believe so, too, and more boat builders are supplying that market, although a few have had boats like this all along. But a Sundeer or a Swan is out of my league G OTOH the prime characteristic of a "fast" sailboat is that it has a relatively light footprint. This makes it bouncier, all else being equal. Question- is the likelihood of getting conked in the head by a flying soup can a "seaworthiness" characteristic? That's a "stowage" characteristic, IMO. Quick movements are exhausting for crew in the long run, but you have to balance of "how quick are we talking about?" with "how LONG are we talking about?" I have a light, seaworthy IOR-style racer-cruiser currently, and several of these elderly '70s models have gone offshore down to the Caribbean or farther, but having sailed in 35 knots on Lake Ontario, I believe whereas the Good Old Boat would survive, the crew would get thrown around too much. So a different approach is called for that meets stowage, tankage and capacity needs AND certain performance parameters. I don't want to wallow at a sea anchor when I can safety run in a blow. snip It seems to me like a wise choice to put priority on issues of strength, controllability, stability, & watertight integrity; and then & only then get into the issue of fast & bouncy versus slow & submarinish (personally, I'd choose fast!). We agree, then. A fast boat that goes to the bottom because it gets rolled or pooped isn't worth a thing unless you are a Volvo 60/Around Alone type. Current ocean racing boats are extreme, but in a good cause G. Something the Hiscocks would've recommended in 1965 is no longer appropriate, although it might prove quite "survivable". There's a happy medium somewhere, and I hope a medium-fast steel boat is it. It's a judgement call... I don't much like steel as a material for sailboats, but certainly there have been successful steel boats even smaller than 38' LOA. None of them have been fast, at best you could say they were a good working compromise between speed & other desirable characteristics. OTOH there are many steel boats designed for the homebuilder market that cannot get out of their own way under sail. Yes, I have been aboard a few! But it is equally true that in skilled hands (and I've seen "better than factory" homebuilts even locally) you can modify, say, a popular Roberts design to get better results. True, although I think you're getting sucked too much into the 'racing boats are flimsy' mindset. Racing boats *have* to be built strong to even make it around the course. Breaking up is slow. And they're expensive enough that nobody considers ephemerity as a good selling point. Not flimsy...I've discussed this with Derek Hatfield, but not appropriate for cruising. Racing boats provide ideas on keels, rudders, rigging and so on that filters down in modified form to the level of a cruiser...that's why foot for foot, today's cruisers are faster than 30 years ago. But a lot of interior design, stowage, height of lifelines and so on is not, IMO, up to extended cruising standards. Great for Caribbean sundowners, mind you. The often pointed to examples of America's Cup boats breaking up are actually (considering the facts)better examples of boats that were field modified outside of the designers sight and had extreme force applied inappropriately. Anybody who does that, cruiser or not, is rolling the dice. Certainly. Most racers know the odds are relatively good of a severe gear failure due to tweaking for performance. Computer hobbyists call it "overclocking" and you can get great performance at the risk of melting your chips and putting out a small, expensive fire G The market for big racing keelboats is basically in freefall. Outside of the very few who want impressive daysailers and those eccentrics in the market to convert them into cruisers, there is zero demand for big non-competitive racing sailboats. I think that's demographics: boating is expensive and there are fewer young people with more ways to spend proportionally less money than say, in the '70s and '80s. It's interesting to note that the asking prices for cruising catamarans also seems to be dropping... not in freefall, but big cats coming out of charter fleets are asking 1/2 what they were. Good for the buyers. I am not dismissive of owning a catamaran, just too ignorant of real-life performance issues to debate what taking one offshore would truly involve. I prefer the intrinsic plus, however, of doing a 360 roll and coming up dismasted, with two feet of water in the cabin but ALIVE in a monohull, to the prospect of a "terminal invert" in a catamaran. But they are superior sailers, certainly. Nice chatting with you, R. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com