On 19 Mar 2004 01:31:02 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, which "small" boats make your short list, and
why?

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

There's no substitute for length and displacement if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore. If you like the old Cal's, I'd
probably pick the 40.

There's no substitute for length ... if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore.

unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.

unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.

unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.

(Bob Whitaker) wrote:
Hello,

Been thinking of moving up to the 30-34 foot range, ideally a sailboat
that would provide safety in open waters, extended cruising
situations. Would love to get a Pacific Seacraft Crealock 34, but "The
Admiral" won't let me, and the bank won't either... I would prefer a
project boat (I would actually enjoy it). Heard great things of Cal
34's. What other boats do folks recommend. Goal is extended coastal
cruising, crossing Gulf of Mexico (Corpus Christi, TX to FL), keys,
Bahamas, maybe extended Caribbean cruising.

I'm a big fan of the Freedom line; so, my recommendation would be an
early 80s Freedom 32, with a sugarscoop added to make it a 34.

Frank

A couple of boats that come to mind are the Tartan 34 and Morgan
34. Both are similar in concept, if not in execution, to the Cal.
Tartan 34's have a good reputation and thus a higher price,
but Morgan owners love their boats too.

Some others to consider that haven't been mentioned yet:

Allied Luders 34, Seawind
Alberg 30, 37 (Alberg designed some of the Cape Dories or is it Cape Dory's)
C&C's are decent boats, and some are centerboarders
Douglas 32
Ericson 35 is a decent boat if a foot too long
Fuji 35 is pretty shippy
Mercator 30
Nicholson 32
Newport 33
Pearson Alberg 35
Ranger 33
Santana 30 (not the 30/30)
Yankee 30

Most of these can be had for decent prices (sub $30k) and are a little
more conservative in design, a lot of them have centerboards.

Matt

"Bob Whitaker" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

Been thinking of moving up to the 30-34 foot range, ideally a sailboat
that would provide safety in open waters, extended cruising
situations. Would love to get a Pacific Seacraft Crealock 34, but "The
Admiral" won't let me, and the bank won't either... I would prefer a
project boat (I would actually enjoy it). Heard great things of Cal
34's. What other boats do folks recommend. Goal is extended coastal
cruising, crossing Gulf of Mexico (Corpus Christi, TX to FL), keys,
Bahamas, maybe extended Caribbean cruising.

Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:

A couple of boats that come to mind are the Tartan 34 and Morgan
34. Both are similar in concept, if not in execution, to the Cal.
Tartan 34's have a good reputation and thus a higher price,
but Morgan owners love their boats too.

The Morgan would be a good tough cruising boat. A lot of people have
unreasonable prejudices against centerboards, though. At one time, all
of the working sailing vessels and most of the yachts on the east &
gulf coasts had them, so they can't be all bad.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:

Most of these can be had for decent prices (sub $30k)
and are a little more conservative in design, a lot of
them have centerboards.

Hello Matt/Meribeth,

Wow, impressive list of boats! Thanks for the post! I'd be interested
in knowing which of these you liked best and which you've had the
opportunity to sail under reduced sail and how they handled. I'm very
interested in your comments, specially about pros and cons of
centerboards. I just thought it might be yet another thing that could
break down so I wasn't considering centerboard boats for my dream trip
(even if it meant missing out on shallow anchorages). I may start a
new thread on this topic one of these days, seeing as the original
post turned into mud-slinging central.

Thanks,

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"

"Bob Whitaker" wrote in message
om...

Wow, impressive list of boats! Thanks for the post! I'd be interested
in knowing which of these you liked best and which you've had the
opportunity to sail under reduced sail and how they handled. I'm very
interested in your comments, specially about pros and cons of
centerboards. I just thought it might be yet another thing that could
break down so I wasn't considering centerboard boats for my dream trip
(even if it meant missing out on shallow anchorages). I may start a
new thread on this topic one of these days, seeing as the original
post turned into mud-slinging central.

I think the Morgan 34 (and the CCA era M33, not the Out Island) are
pretty good boats. The Tartan has a nice reputation but the
centerboard doesn't kick up if you run aground and it can
be hard to repair the mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
The Morgan 34 CB doesn't kick up either, but if you do break
something it is relatively easy to fix since it's a cable mechanism.

I have sailed on the Alberg 35, Ericson 35, C&C 34 (deep keel),
Ranger 33 and Yankee 30. All of them are decent boats but the C&C
is more squirrely than I like going dead downwind. I think the
Ranger 33 is probably the best sailing boat of the bunch, it really
has no vices. I extensively crewed on a Ranger 33 for a number
of years, racing in all weathers. It was my first experience with a
keel boat that stayed on its feet in heavy air downwind.. A friend
who owned one swears by them..
You might get arguments from owners of the Ericson 35 that they
are just as good as the Ranger, but I don't have the heavy air miles
on one to confirm the opinion ( and I'm thinking of the Bruce King
designed Mark II version here). The Yankee 30 also has a good
rep but again my only experience with them is in relatively light
air. They are popular in San Francisco, which tells me they
do pretty well in a breeze. I do like the Ericson 35 a little more
for cruising than the Ranger, the interior and engine access is just
marginally enough nicer that it tips the scales to the Ericson.

All the boats listed will not be a floating condo - don't expect a lot of
room, and some may seem even smaller than the Cal 34.

Random thoughts on the boats I haven't sailed:

The Allied Seawind was the first fiberglass boat to do a circumnavigation,
and I like Tom Gilmer as a designer so it's got to be a good boat

The Luders 34 and Alberg 37 are really pretty boats, but I can't comment
on their handling.

I haven't sailed on the Douglas 32 but it's reportedly a good light air boat
and I think Ted Brewer thought it was one of his better designs.

I have a friend with a Mercator 30 who has taken it to Alaska several
times. Nice boat, enormous V-berth, has a little weather helm.
They are not well known outside of the Pacific Northwest, but at least
one has done a circumnavigation. They could use a little more sail
area, but do make nice cruisers.

The Nich 32 is stout, lots of room for a 32'er and even with her bluff
bow will do pretty well going to windward.

As far a centerboard boats go, for a trip in the Gulf/Florida/Bahamas
I think it's almost a requirement. Not so much for some of the Caribbean.
The big disadvantage is of course the added maintenence of the board
and it's raising/lowering mechanism. That and they can clunk around
in the slot in a seaway, which I always found disconcerting. They
do help you go to windward if your sails are up to it, but there
are many people who glass the board in place and forget about
sailing close winded. I wouldn't, but then I hate sailing boats
that don't go to weather well.

Of course, seaworthiness is always an issue with centerboard boats.
Deep keels have more favorable wieght distribution for resisting
and recovery from capsize. A competent, well prepared crew
should be able to make a centerboarder work for the type of trip
your thinking of though. It wouldn't be my choice for a
circumnavigation, but would be for for Gulf cruising.

AFter the Fastnet storm of 79, there was a lot of research done
on characteristics that help or hinder capsize. One fallout of that
was a capsize screen formula. It is

Beam (feet) divided by displacement^.3333 (displacement to
the 1/3 power, displacement in cubic feet). The result of
this formula should be a value less than 2. I have always
argued that the formula is a little simplistic because it doesn't
take into account ballast placement (you could have 4000
pounds of lead at the top of the mast and the formula would
say you have a seaworthy boat). However, for the boats
under discussion it should give good results.

That's about it for now. Follow up if you'd like, and hopefully
the discussion won't go off track like an IOR boat in a breeze again.

Matt

Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
I think the Morgan 34 (and the CCA era M33, not the Out Island) are
pretty good boats. The Tartan has a nice reputation but the
centerboard doesn't kick up if you run aground and it can
be hard to repair the mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
The Morgan 34 CB doesn't kick up either, but if you do break
something it is relatively easy to fix since it's a cable mechanism.



You might get arguments from owners of the Ericson 35 that they
are just as good as the Ranger, but I don't have the heavy air miles
on one to confirm the opinion ( and I'm thinking of the Bruce King
designed Mark II version here).

Pretty comparable boats in many ways, but IMHO the Ranger is a little
better looking and the Ericson is better built. The Ranger is more
likely to be found at the lower end of the price range, too (not a
judgement on them).


As far a centerboard boats go, for a trip in the Gulf/Florida/Bahamas
I think it's almost a requirement. Not so much for some of the Caribbean.
The big disadvantage is of course the added maintenence of the board
and it's raising/lowering mechanism.


Sure the centerboard is a maintenance item, and some are easier & more
reliable than others. IMHO it is well worth the added capability... when
we talk about cruising with people who have deep draft boats, they
usually say "We can go anywhere we want" dismissively... but then it
turns out that there is a long long list of nice places that they "don't
want" to go...

I also consider it a safety issue, in that you have more options with
less draft.


... That and they can clunk around
in the slot in a seaway, which I always found disconcerting.

That can be fixed relatively easily, depending on the board design.

... They
do help you go to windward if your sails are up to it, but there
are many people who glass the board in place and forget about
sailing close winded. I wouldn't, but then I hate sailing boats
that don't go to weather well.

Agreed. Getting trapped on a lee shore is guaranteed bad day.


Of course, seaworthiness is always an issue with centerboard boats.
Deep keels have more favorable wieght distribution for resisting
and recovery from capsize. A competent, well prepared crew
should be able to make a centerboarder work for the type of trip
your thinking of though. It wouldn't be my choice for a
circumnavigation, but would be for for Gulf cruising.

The big issue I see here is the Center of Gravity (specifically, where
it is located vertically) and it's impact on the Limit of Positive
Stability. It's a lot easier to get a good LPOS if you can put the
ballast nice and low. But the old fashioned centerboarders, somewhat
narrow by modern standards, with strong sheer and narrow sterns, can
have a better LPOS in practice than a modern boat with high sides and
wide transom.

That's in theory... in practice, when this is an issue, it's more
important to make sure you don't get conked in the head by a flying soup
can... not on most people's list of seaworthiness issues


AFter the Fastnet storm of 79, there was a lot of research done
on characteristics that help or hinder capsize. One fallout of that
was a capsize screen formula. It is

Beam (feet) divided by displacement^.3333 (displacement to
the 1/3 power, displacement in cubic feet). The result of
this formula should be a value less than 2. I have always
argued that the formula is a little simplistic because it doesn't
take into account ballast placement (you could have 4000
pounds of lead at the top of the mast and the formula would
say you have a seaworthy boat). However, for the boats
under discussion it should give good results.

Yes, the point of the capsize screen formula (or ratio) is to compare
similar boats... not to scale seaworthiness. In the absence of more
detailed data, the CSR and the ballast/disp ratio can tell a lot about a
boats hardiness for rough weather. And there are so many other
seaworthiness considerations... the rig, the hatches, the stowage, etc
etc... that it's easy to give this too much weight.

BTW I noticed that nobody has yet mentioned "small cockpits" or
recommended double enders...

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote :
....snip...
BTW I noticed that nobody has yet mentioned "small cockpits" or
recommended double enders...

After all that worthwhile discussion, there you go starting ****
again! grin

You're incorrigible. Couldn't we discuss double entendres, instead? IF
we did that, I'll bet we could somehow work in the phrase "small
cockpit."

Frank

"Matt/Meribeth Pedersen" wrote:
....lotta good commentary snipped for space...

Of the boats Matt mentions, I'd enthusiastically support the Ranger or
the C&C. I owned a Ranger 29 for a coupla years and a C&C 34 for a
coupla years. Either one would make my list of "boats I'd be willling
to own." Guess I should add "again" to that statement.

Matt also alludes to the bad designs which were spawned under the IOR
rules of the 70s and which culminated in rule changes after the
Fastnet disaster. Remember, however, that it wasn't just fin-keeled
IOR freak designs which were eaten by that storm. Lotta "blue water
cruisers" fared poorly, too. Conversely, there were two J-30s in that
storm and they survived easily; one was a single-hander. I doubt
anyone would consider the J-30 as a "blue water cruiser;" but
considering its performance in those circumstances, compared to a lot
of other designs, ya gotta give it snaps. Pretty low on the "creature
comforts" scale, however.

Of the others, I have no experience with some he mentions; but most
are not boats which I personally favor. Alberg, Allied, and Nicholson
are all boats which would completely fail to make my personal list;
too heavy for my taste. And I'd debate the windward ability of the
Nicholson. Oh, and while the sailing ability of the Newport is good
because the basic design is by C&C, their build quality is, IMO, the
worst in the business. That'd drop Newport off my list.

But at this point I'm quibbling from my prejudices. Matt has
contributed some great info here and I appreciate reading his comments
and opinions. Threads on Usenet almost always go squirrelly; but the
good ones retain a core of useful information and reasoned debate.

Frank