Talking to a very knowledgeable surveyor here, without looking at the
particular boat, says that Irwins were roomy and make great liveaboards, but
were not to be trusted offshore. They were a cheaply made boat to fit a
particular market and not for the serious cruiser.
That seems to fit what many of you have said.
Thanks all
Gordon

Gordon wrote:
Talking to a very knowledgeable surveyor here, without looking at the
particular boat, says that Irwins were roomy and make great liveaboards, but
were not to be trusted offshore. They were a cheaply made boat to fit a
particular market and not for the serious cruiser.
That seems to fit what many of you have said.
Thanks all
Gordon


Did the surveyor say why Irwins "were not to be trusted offshore"? Are
they prone to breaking up and sinking, thru hulls fall out, mast break
off? What makes them dangerous offshore? Just like to know his reasons.
krj

The story on this page might shed some light.

http://pages.sssnet.com/go2erie/wind.htm

Scroll down to the Irwin Citation
--

Roger Long



"krj" wrote

Did the surveyor say why Irwins "were not to be trusted offshore"?
Are they prone to breaking up and sinking, thru hulls fall out, mast
break off? What makes them dangerous offshore? Just like to know his
reasons.
krj

Roger Long wrote:
The story on this page might shed some light.

http://pages.sssnet.com/go2erie/wind.htm

Scroll down to the Irwin Citation

The story talks about the side of the hull flexing
while beating into 4-5' chop. I read a similar
story about the Irwin 53 that was written by a
delivery skipper.

Bottom line, they are not blue water boats. The
same can be (and is) said about a lot of other
manufacturers products as well.

Don W.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:58:03 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The story on this page might shed some light.

http://pages.sssnet.com/go2erie/wind.htm

Scroll down to the Irwin Citation

That's the Citation, which was a very lightweight boat compared to the
37 or 42. A very different boat.

Steve

Serious flexing!
G
"krj" wrote in message
. ..
Gordon wrote:
Talking to a very knowledgeable surveyor here, without looking at the
particular boat, says that Irwins were roomy and make great liveaboards,
but
were not to be trusted offshore. They were a cheaply made boat to fit a
particular market and not for the serious cruiser.
That seems to fit what many of you have said.
Thanks all
Gordon


Did the surveyor say why Irwins "were not to be trusted offshore"? Are
they prone to breaking up and sinking, thru hulls fall out, mast break
off? What makes them dangerous offshore? Just like to know his reasons.
krj

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:21:56 -0700, "Gordon"
wrote:

Talking to a very knowledgeable surveyor here, without looking at the
particular boat, says that Irwins were roomy and make great liveaboards, but
were not to be trusted offshore. They were a cheaply made boat to fit a
particular market and not for the serious cruiser.
That seems to fit what many of you have said.

They were actually designed and layed out for the Carribean charter
business. Cruising the BVIs, etc. They're great for that. For
instance, my 37 CC had two complete and private staterooms, each with
a head with shower. And a large main salon, large galley (3 burner
stove, oven, large sink) had 2 large coolers and a fridge, ample
storage space, etc. etc. You have full size walkthrough passage from
the inside to the aft stateroom, which a lot of center cockpit boats
that size don't have (you have to go through the cockpit on a lot of
them.)

It was set up so two couples or a family with kids could cruise
comfortably for a few weeks on the calm seas of the Carribean. And it
does that very well. It's also very comfortable and perfect for the
Chesapeake and for coastal cruising. But I wouldn't want to circumnav
in mine without some modifications/upgrades.

Steve