Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Marc wrote:
There are ,anecdotally, a large percentage of Freedom owners who's
choice of future boats lies only within the Freedom family. I don't
have any idea how this degree of brand loyalty compares with other
makes and owners, but it is vociferous, myself included, and
noteworthy due to the radically different rig and construction
methods.

I understand this comment and agree that it's likely, if somewhat
unprovable. Unfortunately, as I said in another comment, I find the
newest (Pedrick) designs, the 35 and 40/40, less attractive (less
"Freedomish"?)than the earlier ones. So, I wonder what the future
holds for the Freedom line/concept.

I chartered a F35 for two weeks a coupla years ago just to see how I
liked it compared to previous types, like the Mull 36/38. It was
certainly fun, and still more attractive to me than most "standard"
sloops; but I much prefer the Mull 36/38. And, because the 36/38s are
older, they're cheaper. Cool!

Maybe Freedom just needs a new motto: Once you've sailed a Freedom,
you'll never go back!

I pretty much agree with that.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

Why mention it? Because the guy who got me into sailing lived aboard a
Ranger 33 and claimed that my boat was very similar in handling and
sea-keeping. Certainly the stats of the two boats are not far removed.

So, maybe my answers will help. I would add the Viking 33 to your
list, but it's got low freeboard and not a lot of beam compared to
modern boats...the qualities that make them fast Great Lakes and
coastal cruisers mean they would be a little fatiguing and short of
stowage on the big briny. Or so I think. I know a lot of 'em went from
Lake Ontario down south as far as Trinidad, so maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway:

Will they go bow to wind?

Because of the small main and the long J, I find lashing the storm jib
down and fiddling with the tiller can allow me to crab when the wind's
too grim to safely proceed.


stern to wind? If I'm running, I run, in broad reaches if possible.
Dead downwind is tricky and not particularly fast and can get wet.


or lay abeam?

With 4500 lbs of keel on a 10,000 lb. boat, she stays on her feet
pretty well. But boats like mine and I would think the Ranger 33 do
exhibit an unpleasant "whip" in beam seas. So I tend to avoid them
where possible. It won't hurt the boat, but it's hard on the crew,
something that could be said of a lot of C&C designs.

I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

I have been out under reefs in sustained 40 knots in the square waves
of Lake Ontario (9-10 feet and breaking). I have never thought it
politic to stay still in such weather, and find that my boat sails
well and safely under reduced sail, although I have been quite glad
for the buoyancy in the bow surfing off some of those waves.

Boat characteristics are to a point of far less importance than the
ability of the skipper to sail effectively and with proper seamanship.
These days, it's not necessary in most cases to "get caught" by the
weather, and very few situations are "survival". There's a big
knowledge gap, however, in that a lot of recreational sailors come in
around the 20-25 knot mark, because of comfort or fear issues. Between
25-40 knots is in my mind where the best sailing and passagemaking is
found. If you can learn how to keep the boat going without busting
things in that, the make and model becomes less important. Modern
boats are made to provide "fun times" in relatively benign conditions.
I've found that older styled boats lose on this score because
potential buyers see them poking along in 10 knots, instead of the 30
knots of the open ocean with which they leap to life. Figure out the
type of sailing and the area in which you think you are going, and go
from there. Under 35 feet there are real "blue-water" bargains,
because that's too small for a lot of modern tastes, too cramped, too
free of amenities. It's a very manageable size for a single-hander or
couple, however, and is easier to manage in terms of sail wrangling.
But nice seakeeping designs at 30-35 feet tend to look pokey or low or
pudgy and not like the fridge-shaped Hunters and so on that look great
at dock and give me the willies when I think of them in a proper blow.

Good luck and hope this helps.

R.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

On 12 Mar 2004 14:19:34 -0800, (Frank Maier) wrote:

Heard great things of Cal
34's.

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

I owned a Cal-34 for many years. We cruised and raced it for
thousands of miles and had a great time.. It's very roomy for its
size and genre and is very fast off the wind, especially on a breezy
spinnaker reach. With an inexpensive tiller autopilot it can be
easily sailed by one or two people. Those are the major good points
other than being relatively easy to work on.

On the down side, the boats are getting old and need to be carefully
surveyed for structural issues. Weak points are the deck stepped
mast, the wood supporting column below decks, the chainplates, mast,
spreaders, and the fibreglass keel shell. Many older boats have
addressed some of these issues out of necessity, others have been
lucky, and more still have lurking issues as do most 30+ year old
boats. Most have either been repowered already or are badly in need
of it. Diesel is the way to go for serious cruising.

People have crossed oceans in Cal-34s but it's real strength is as a
coastal cruiser, preferably down wind. There are very few sailboats
under 45 feet on which I'd want to spend more than a day or two in
offshore conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

"rhys" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.

The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios). I haven't done much
cruising in bad weather (that's what heaters, blankets, books, and
anchors are for as far as I'm concerned), and my blue water work has
all been with bigger crews (4 minimum), so we always actively sailed
through the tough stuff.

Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.

I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Wayne B. wrote

I owned a Cal-34 for many years.


Hello from a fellow Cal owner. I have a Cal 25, but even though Dave
and Jaja Martin sailed theirs (heavily modified) around the world, I
don't think I'll be attempting the same feat :) I belong to a list of
Cal owners, and when asked which Cal they would consider for extended
offshore cruising, most votes came in for the Cal 34 (medium size) and
the Cal 40 or 46 (larger size).

Weak points are the deck stepped mast, the wood supporting
column below decks, the chainplates, mast, spreaders, and
the fibreglass keel shell.

I actually prefer a deck stepped mast, but I think you are referring
to the wood below, right? Yes, my ideal boat would be a fiberglass
shell and I would re-build the interior completely. I'm not quite
ready to build my own hull, but there's this guy Glenn Ashmore who is
building his own from scratch (www.rutuonline.com). He is something of
a hero to me.

There are very few sailboats under 45 feet on which I'd want
to spend more than a day or two in offshore conditions.

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

Thanks,

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"


Wayne.B wrote in message . ..
On 12 Mar 2004 14:19:34 -0800, (Frank Maier) wrote:

Heard great things of Cal
34's.

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

I owned a Cal-34 for many years. We cruised and raced it for
thousands of miles and had a great time.. It's very roomy for its
size and genre and is very fast off the wind, especially on a breezy
spinnaker reach. With an inexpensive tiller autopilot it can be
easily sailed by one or two people. Those are the major good points
other than being relatively easy to work on.

On the down side, the boats are getting old and need to be carefully
surveyed for structural issues. Weak points are the deck stepped
mast, the wood supporting column below decks, the chainplates, mast,
spreaders, and the fibreglass keel shell. Many older boats have
addressed some of these issues out of necessity, others have been
lucky, and more still have lurking issues as do most 30+ year old
boats. Most have either been repowered already or are badly in need
of it. Diesel is the way to go for serious cruising.

People have crossed oceans in Cal-34s but it's real strength is as a
coastal cruiser, preferably down wind. There are very few sailboats
under 45 feet on which I'd want to spend more than a day or two in
offshore conditions.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Doug King wrote:

Dear Bob-
You take [...] me [...] far too seriously.

Thanks for pointing that out... I'll try not to make the same mistake
in the future :)

As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an
advertising phrase.

And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right? How is that _ANY_ different
from the other rude behavior which we see in this newsgroup? Or is it
OK for _SOME_ members to be rude but not others? Maybe it takes an
outsider to tell it like it is, Doug, but once in a while you tend to
behave in the same manner as the creatures you despise. My Mom told me
once that: "--Only your mother will tell you if you have bad breath."
and Doug, sometimes you have bad breath. Everybody is entitled to make
mistakes and you made a mistake. Whether you recognize it or not is a
different matter and remains to be seen. I will assume that deep down
inside you truly regret your snotty comment which opened this entire
thread and that you would take it back if you could (even if you are
loath to admit it). Please advise if my assumption is correct or
mistaken.

Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time."

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob Whitaker wrote:
And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right?

Oh grow up.

Fresh Breezes
Doug King

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

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.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

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.

Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
 

Bob, you are learning who/what dougies is.

Doug King wrote:

Dear Bob-
You take [...] me [...] far too seriously.

Thanks for pointing that out... I'll try not to make the same mistake
in the future :)

As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an
advertising phrase.

And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right? How is that _ANY_ different
from the other rude behavior which we see in this newsgroup? Or is it
OK for _SOME_ members to be rude but not others? Maybe it takes an
outsider to tell it like it is, Doug, but once in a while you tend to
behave in the same manner as the creatures you despise. My Mom told me
once that: "--Only your mother will tell you if you have bad breath."
and Doug, sometimes you have bad breath. Everybody is entitled to make
mistakes and you made a mistake. Whether you recognize it or not is a
different matter and remains to be seen. I will assume that deep down
inside you truly regret your snotty comment which opened this entire
thread and that you would take it back if you could (even if you are
loath to admit it). Please advise if my assumption is correct or
mistaken.

Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time."