On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:39:05 -0500, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few positive
aspects of transom stern boats

One such thing is the ability to have a swim platform/integral
ladder/easy transition from dinghy to cockpit. That's important to
many people, including me.

Tayanas:
Every one is different below decks - all were "semi-custom'. Many have
oil finished interiors and over the years have age darkened and need
lots of work stripping. Varnished interiors wlll 'dazzle'. The
interior crafstmanship is utterly phenominal - master cabinet makers
all. A good Tayana will look like a blending of a good shipyard and an
upscale furniture manufacturer.
Definitely dont bother with a "pullman" interior if you're interested
in blue water.

There maybe 'some' problems on older boats. If you get serious about a
TY37 drop me an email, as I will relate to 'stuff' that most surveyors
will absolutely miss, etc.

;-)

Tayanas:
Every one is different below decks - all were "semi-custom'. Many have
oil finished interiors and over the years have age darkened and need
lots of work stripping. Varnished interiors wlll 'dazzle'. The
interior crafstmanship is utterly phenominal - master cabinet makers
all. A good Tayana will look like a blending of a good shipyard and an
upscale furniture manufacturer.
Definitely dont bother with a "pullman" interior if you're interested
in blue water.

There maybe 'some' problems on older boats. If you get serious about a
TY37 drop me an email, as I will relate to 'stuff' that most surveyors
will absolutely miss, etc.

;-)

The 'metallurgy' on taiwanese boats leaves very much to be desired.
Much of the 'bronze' is actually red brass. The majority of red metal
castings are outstandlingly porous (gas inclusions). A lot of the
stainless is very poor grade - with lots of vulnerability to fatigue
failure, etc. in stress loaded components.

This is typical to most asian supply metals ----- just like the
imported hardware CRAP that is widescale offered today in the USA . Im
quite sure that if one did a detailed chemical analysis of these
metals, one would find residue of .... cat, floor sweepings, etc.

Many taiwanese boat yards use(d) rigging from 'local' suppliers and
many of the normally forged rigging fittings are actually very
cleverly machined / screwed-together 'contraptions' that are
extremely subject to crevice corrosion failu "Grand Deer" components
as an example.

The 'metallurgy' on taiwanese boats leaves very much to be desired.
Much of the 'bronze' is actually red brass. The majority of red metal
castings are outstandlingly porous (gas inclusions). A lot of the
stainless is very poor grade - with lots of vulnerability to fatigue
failure, etc. in stress loaded components.

This is typical to most asian supply metals ----- just like the
imported hardware CRAP that is widescale offered today in the USA . Im
quite sure that if one did a detailed chemical analysis of these
metals, one would find residue of .... cat, floor sweepings, etc.

Many taiwanese boat yards use(d) rigging from 'local' suppliers and
many of the normally forged rigging fittings are actually very
cleverly machined / screwed-together 'contraptions' that are
extremely subject to crevice corrosion failu "Grand Deer" components
as an example.

The Perry design double enders are distinctlly 'different' from the
Collin Archer influenced design in that Perry has added a considerable
'bustle' to the stern. Underwater the shape is very similar to wide
transom designs of that design era. Perry will flaty acknowledge that
the stern choice " ... is truly/solely for 'aesthetics' , unless you
plan to sail around the world backwards".
I have a TY37 and find an interesting positive aspect to the pinched
stern....... you cant overload a pinched stern with lots of stored /
ever accumulating heavy weight crap; thus, you automatically keep the
'ends' light to prevent 'hobby-horsing' / pitching. Dont believe me,
go to the lazarette of any fat-assed boat and look whats accumulated
there after a few years.

Hey, turn the pinched stern inside -out and what do you have? ....
sugar scoop!



In article , Armond Perretta
wrote:

Wendy wrote:

I think I have identified some choices that fit my budget and
expectations:

Tayana 37 ...
Valiant 40 ...
Pacific Seacraft 34/37 ...
Ta Shing Panda 38 ...

Thoughts/opinions are certainly welcome!!

If I'm not mistaken all of these except the Pacific Seacrafts are Bob Perry
designs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that (I just noticed that
another writer pointed this out elsewhere, so maybe my memory is correct).
The PS boats are, I believe, Crealock designs. Both of these NAs are of
high repute.

You are obviously leaning toward "double enders" or canoe stern boats. If
that is because you like the look that's fine, but you should be aware of
some other aspects of the design. The original idea for this style dates
back to certain Scandinavian designs from the early part of the 20th
century. There have been many modifications over the years (e.g., the
Atkins series, which I believe includes Steve's "Ingrid"), but it wasn't
until Bob Perry came along and modified the design with the Valiant 40 that
the idea really took off. The Valiant 40 was in some ways revolutionary and
is still way up there on the list of good designs.

However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation. I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is not
supported by any real evidence.

Next, and again depending on boat size, for a given length you definitely
_do_ lose some room, both on deck (in and around the cockpit) and below
(stowage-wise). This isn't much of a problem for a single-hander in a 40
foot boat, if a 40 foot boat is what you want. But single-handing a 40
footer is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for
sure after re-reading your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this
is a goal. If so, you should give serious though to what size makes
ultimate sense in the long term. I have single-handed many miles in designs
around 30 feet. I once took a 47 footer from Florida up to Long Island
single-handed, and although it was quite comfortable while underway
offshore, and especially at anchor, handling a boat that size in harbor or
alongside by myself was less than enjoyable. Too much work, planning,
anticipation, and just plain worry. As an aside, remember that tying
stern-to in a 40+ foot double-ended boat by yourself, and then navigating
the gap to get ashore, is usually harder than with a transom boat.

In short, think about why you want a double-ender, and also what size you
can get away with. Especially for $90K or so.

The Perry design double enders are distinctlly 'different' from the
Collin Archer influenced design in that Perry has added a considerable
'bustle' to the stern. Underwater the shape is very similar to wide
transom designs of that design era. Perry will flaty acknowledge that
the stern choice " ... is truly/solely for 'aesthetics' , unless you
plan to sail around the world backwards".
I have a TY37 and find an interesting positive aspect to the pinched
stern....... you cant overload a pinched stern with lots of stored /
ever accumulating heavy weight crap; thus, you automatically keep the
'ends' light to prevent 'hobby-horsing' / pitching. Dont believe me,
go to the lazarette of any fat-assed boat and look whats accumulated
there after a few years.

Hey, turn the pinched stern inside -out and what do you have? ....
sugar scoop!



In article , Armond Perretta
wrote:

Wendy wrote:

I think I have identified some choices that fit my budget and
expectations:

Tayana 37 ...
Valiant 40 ...
Pacific Seacraft 34/37 ...
Ta Shing Panda 38 ...

Thoughts/opinions are certainly welcome!!

If I'm not mistaken all of these except the Pacific Seacrafts are Bob Perry
designs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that (I just noticed that
another writer pointed this out elsewhere, so maybe my memory is correct).
The PS boats are, I believe, Crealock designs. Both of these NAs are of
high repute.

You are obviously leaning toward "double enders" or canoe stern boats. If
that is because you like the look that's fine, but you should be aware of
some other aspects of the design. The original idea for this style dates
back to certain Scandinavian designs from the early part of the 20th
century. There have been many modifications over the years (e.g., the
Atkins series, which I believe includes Steve's "Ingrid"), but it wasn't
until Bob Perry came along and modified the design with the Valiant 40 that
the idea really took off. The Valiant 40 was in some ways revolutionary and
is still way up there on the list of good designs.

However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation. I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is not
supported by any real evidence.

Next, and again depending on boat size, for a given length you definitely
_do_ lose some room, both on deck (in and around the cockpit) and below
(stowage-wise). This isn't much of a problem for a single-hander in a 40
foot boat, if a 40 foot boat is what you want. But single-handing a 40
footer is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for
sure after re-reading your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this
is a goal. If so, you should give serious though to what size makes
ultimate sense in the long term. I have single-handed many miles in designs
around 30 feet. I once took a 47 footer from Florida up to Long Island
single-handed, and although it was quite comfortable while underway
offshore, and especially at anchor, handling a boat that size in harbor or
alongside by myself was less than enjoyable. Too much work, planning,
anticipation, and just plain worry. As an aside, remember that tying
stern-to in a 40+ foot double-ended boat by yourself, and then navigating
the gap to get ashore, is usually harder than with a transom boat.

In short, think about why you want a double-ender, and also what size you
can get away with. Especially for $90K or so.

As I recall from talking with Don Kohlman @ PSC, they were owned by a
Japanese company until fairly recently, but a few (4?) years ago they were
sold to an American individual investor. PSC has been operated by the same
crew for many years though. The Nordhavn contract really helped out with
the cash-flow for a while, but they have had to do some belt-tightening
recently. I think that they are in reasonable (but not great) shape now,
and they continue to get orders for new boats. I'm sure that they could use
more though.
-Paul


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
I have _heard_ that Pacific Seacraft was sold to a Japanese company. For
sure
it was common knowledge that 3 or 4 or 5 years ago PS was on the edge of
insolvency. I most casually mentioned it in passing to a counter hostess
at
the PS display at the Annapolis boat show and draw an unbelievably sharp
response.

As I recall from talking with Don Kohlman @ PSC, they were owned by a
Japanese company until fairly recently, but a few (4?) years ago they were
sold to an American individual investor. PSC has been operated by the same
crew for many years though. The Nordhavn contract really helped out with
the cash-flow for a while, but they have had to do some belt-tightening
recently. I think that they are in reasonable (but not great) shape now,
and they continue to get orders for new boats. I'm sure that they could use
more though.
-Paul


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
I have _heard_ that Pacific Seacraft was sold to a Japanese company. For
sure
it was common knowledge that 3 or 4 or 5 years ago PS was on the edge of
insolvency. I most casually mentioned it in passing to a counter hostess
at
the PS display at the Annapolis boat show and draw an unbelievably sharp
response.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:29:02 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

Of the four boats you have listed, IMFO, the Pacific Seacraft, then the
Tayana.

The only one I've seen regularly up here is the Pacific Seacraft: I've
been aboard both the 34 and the 37 and I must say that I'm impressed,
mainly with a lot of the "little things" most production builders seem
to have forgotten. Also, Practical Sailor had a great article on the
37 last year that made me want to get one.

R.