"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

Couldn't we discuss double entendres, instead?

not with dougies in the discussion loop.

"Frank Maier" wrote in message
om...
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

Great idea. I love the Southern Cross 31 (although I think
it could use a little more stick), and the SC39 is a nice boat.
The Valiant 40 is a great all round cruising boat (so is the
Esprit 37). Both are really well mannered. Bob Perry
owned and raced a 37 for a number of years and got
killed by a well sailed Cal 33 with a gift rating, but hey
they had fun.

I could go for a Tayana 37 as a cruising boat (the ketch rig
on this design is better than a cutter, as much as it pains me
to say it). If your tastes for teak run higher there is always the
Tashiba/Baba/Tayanas. And don't forget the Fast Passage 39.

Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
ender parting the waves? Actually, they typically do have
good balance between fore and aft volume, so that should help
in running off. But, if you're being overtaken by an eight foot
breaking sea I don't think it matters what the stern shape
looks like, your boots are going to get wet.

The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong). But it's interesting
that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.

Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.

Matt

One of the best features my double ender, a Tayana 37, is its' tight and
secure small cockpit. When I settle into it on a warm summer night,
there is no better feeling.

I think I'd better stop. I'm starting to excite myself.

Fair winds - Dan Best


Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
"Frank Maier" wrote in message
om...

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


Great idea. I love the Southern Cross 31 (although I think
it could use a little more stick), and the SC39 is a nice boat.
The Valiant 40 is a great all round cruising boat (so is the
Esprit 37). Both are really well mannered. Bob Perry
owned and raced a 37 for a number of years and got
killed by a well sailed Cal 33 with a gift rating, but hey
they had fun.

I could go for a Tayana 37 as a cruising boat (the ketch rig
on this design is better than a cutter, as much as it pains me
to say it). If your tastes for teak run higher there is always the
Tashiba/Baba/Tayanas. And don't forget the Fast Passage 39.

Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
ender parting the waves? Actually, they typically do have
good balance between fore and aft volume, so that should help
in running off. But, if you're being overtaken by an eight foot
breaking sea I don't think it matters what the stern shape
looks like, your boots are going to get wet.

The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong). But it's interesting
that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.

Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.

Matt



--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

"Frank Maier" wrote...
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."

As long as I don't start getting spam about how to enlarge it....


Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
ender parting the waves?

If running with a drogue, sure. IMHO your idea about the balance between
reserve bouyancy fore & aft is right on.


The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong).

Far be it from me to criticize anybody's spelling. The Redningskoite
originated as a fisheries service & rescue boat, developed by a Scotsman
named (fanfare of trumpets) Colin Archer.

http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Sail/Ingrid.html

The funny thing about the Colin Archer designs is that most people who
profess to love the type don't really know anything about them... for
example, extolling heavy displacement and moderate reserve bouyancy
aft... whereas these boats were built as light as possible for the
strength required, given the technology of the day, and one of the big
changes Colin Archer made in previous design was to dramatically
increase reserve bouyancy.

The Valiant series is an interesting case study... they are not in any
way related to the Colin Archer type, having wall sides, snubbed canoe
sterns, and fin keels. Bob Perry once said in an unguarded moment that
the Valiat resulted when he took a moderate displacement fin keeler and
had fun making it look like a pirate ship. But not to hold that against
them, they are good boats and darn well built. And to the superficial
glance, they do *look* like a Colin Archer....

The Westsail 32 is another boat often hailed as a modern Colin Archer,
but isn't even close.

... But it's interesting
that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.

One thing to keep in mind is that those old timers had a lot more
patience than we do, and a much higher tolerance for user-unfriendly
systems. These boats sail more like submarines than a modern sailor is
likely to put up with.



Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.

How about an open transom? Can't get much more drain area than that. The
issue is to keep the reserve bouyancy figures similar.



Bob Whitaker wrote:
Well, Frank, since you brought it up, I feel compelled to reply. It
seems, that Doug could be a good contributor if he wanted to.

Dear Bob-
You take yourself, and me, and probably everybody else far too seriously.

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

Most sailors who actually cross oceans call their boats passage makers,
and there is a tremendous amount of discussion (informed and otherwise)
on what characteristics make for a desirable passage making sailboat. It
appears to me that the most important feature is between the skippers
ears, all else is a matter of familiarity, prejudice, and personal taste.

People have crossed oceans in waterproofed refrigerator crates, so a
real sailboat would have to be pretty bad before it couldn't do it. OTOH
you will find a large number of people with some experience in a given
type of boat who will vigorously proclaim that this is the ONLY type of
ocean capable boat. YMMV

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

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."

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

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."